Floor Statements

I am 73 years old, but I didn't chair it all the time.

So that I understand, I am speaking on my own time now; is that correct?

Right. First, let me say the Senator who is raising the point of order has every right to raise the point of order. The question is, is this a real point of order? I want to tell the Senate, I am not the Parliamentarian. I am not the Congressional Budget Office. But if I were either, I would say this point of order does not even lie, not that we should defeat it, it just does not lie. It is not a proper interpretation of the existing budget law to say this point of order can be raised and can invalidate this bill because the bill violates the budget.

I want the Senators who are worried about voting to waive this point of order to understand this is not a budgetary issue. This is a technical point of order that got to the Senate because the Congressional Budget Office, I assume, or the Parliamentarian in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, ruled that any expenditure of money exceeding $5 billion over a baseline in the year 2016 cannot be sustained.

You see, Senator Byrd, this was done by our distinguished new chairman of the Budget Committee because he found that budgets were being broken in future years by putting in a program that ran at $2 or $3 billion a year and increased, way out there in future years, up to $10 or $15 billion.

Now, fellow Senators, what I have described was perfectly valid until the distinguished chairman, within his rights, decided that this was a problem he wanted to solve. Now, you see, the goal is to prevent the bump-up of expenditures in future years that are unexpected by everybody voting today--unexpected because the increase comes along 10 years later and costs much more than what you thought you were voting for.

Now, I cannot explain it any better than that. That is about the best I can do. Somebody must have determined that this budget rule applies because there is no way to disburse this trust fund money without going through the Department of Labor. That must be it. Because some Government agency must take this money--not tax money, not Federal money--and run it through their books and write the checks, somebody has decided that this fear of a bump-up in some future year applies.

My good friend from Nevada is absolutely right to bring up this point of order if what he wants to have happen to this bill is for it to be proven by 60 votes. That is fine. But I want everybody to know, if the point of order is not sustained and this bill goes forward, I don't think the deficit of the United States is going to be affected in 2016 by one dollar if this $5 billion estimate is true because the money is not

really on the Federal books. The trust fund has no real relationship to the expenditure of Federal money.

So in considering this budget rule--I have explained it to you--I ask: how are we going to break the budget when this money is not even part of the budget? It is not on the budget. The money is going to be collected and then go through the Department of Labor, but it is not Federal money.

I say to Senator Byrd, when they send the budget up in 2016, there is not going to be any of this trust fund money. This money might get a footnote. The Department of Labor is going to have to run the trust fund, but it cannot add to or subtract from the deficit because the Government is not spending its money. And it is not tax money.

So let me say, if you want to kill this bill based upon a point of order that is--it is almost not a point of order, it is just a little, tiny technicality--it gets in by the skin of its teeth on an interpretation--then vote for it. If you are worried about saving money, and being a tightfisted budgeteer, then understand that this has nothing to do with being a tightfisted budgeteer because there is no budgeting involved.

So I thank the good chairman who has worked so hard on this bill. I have never sat on the committee that produced this bill in my 34 years here. I never chose to go on the Judiciary Committee, so I am not intimately knowledgeable about this. But I know we better do something about asbestos. We run around talking about fiscal responsibility and helping business and cutting taxes so we will have more business. If we do not do anything about asbestos, and leave it in the courts, it will be the biggest abuse of the court system that we have ever known.

If you want to tell these new countries becoming democracies, ``boy, are we a gifted country, we have this great rule of law, this fantastic court system,'' please, don't let them ask about asbestos because they will laugh: Why should they be like America? Why should they have a legal system that is so messed up that there are hundreds of thousands of claimants running around this country with scores of lawyers who, when we were practicing law, would not even have been lawyers? You could not run around soliciting these cases when I was sworn into the bar. You could not run around hiring these doctors when I was a member of the bar. You could not run around saying: Go get your neighbors and sign them up.

That is American law today. It is business. It is entrepreneurial law. That is what we have. But it is not very orderly and it is not very ``due'' in terms of due process. Nor is it very fair because the claimants do not get very much money. The lawyers get a lot.

I do not know why we would want to kill this bill. Lawyers get less. There is an orderliness involved. There is a way to adjudicate claims instead of waiting around for years. So with this point of order, while I think it is not even a point of order in the sense of what we intended with the 10-year-out rule--let's call it that; the 10-year-out rule--I do not know what we are even trying to protect against. It is not going to affect anything except to possibly kill the bill.

So with that I thank the Senate for yielding me a few minutes. I regret having to intervene before the proponent got to speak. But I thank the Senate nonetheless.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico to speak as in morning business?

I yield myself 5 minutes and ask I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a matter that is obviously dear to the occupant of the chair because it has to do with leasehold 181, off the coast of Florida, Alabama, Louisiana. The bill, which was introduced yesterday by Senator Bingaman, myself, Senator Talent, and Senator Dorgan, seeks to permit drilling on a portion of section 181 within 1 year. The bill protects a 100-mile buffer from the coastline of the State of Florida. This bill protects a portion of 181 that the U.S. Armed Forces indicated they might someday need to perform on and use for some military purposes.

These two exceptions and protections are explicit. That is, how far from the coast of Florida and the military protection area. But more than this, this bill seeks to protect the American people from the rising cost of heating their homes and filling up their cars, and, yes, soon, cooling their homes.

Today, the price of oil is about $65 a barrel, and the price of natural gas, while lower than a few months ago, is $8.24 for a million Btu's. To put that in perspective, if you go back only 6 years, the United States in its totality was spending $50 billion on natural gas. Today, we are spending $200 billion, and rising. That means many American businesses have already gone broke because they cannot pay for the price of natural gas. It means the petrochemical industry in America is hanging on, can't grow, and certainly, where they were going to build here, they are building elsewhere. The fertilizer industry is almost bankrupt, and the manufacturing industry is suffering from many things, but they will tell you the highest priority is to get natural gas prices under control.

While we are protecting Florida, we are charged with the responsibility of doing what we can to help the American consumer.

This year, we were very lucky, although Katrina was unlucky. The price of natural gas did not stay high, as high as it was going, because we had a warm winter. It still is at an enormously high price, and I just told you about that. Many Americans had their budgets and had disposable income. They woke up when they got their natural gas bill and half of their disposable income was gone. Where? To their gas bill, because many of them went up from $100 to $200, $200 to $400.

I must say to Senators, we have been told--the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman and I have been told--that the highest priority for natural gas production in the United States--not second, not third, not fourth; the highest--is Leasehold 181. It is ready. It is known. They have drilled all around it with no damage. We had Katrina and no spills. It is 100 miles from Florida, and it will produce a minimum approximating 6 trillion cubic feet. What is that? It is one-fourth of the entire natural gas use of the United States per year; 10 million houses cooled and heated for 6 years. This piece of coast, offshore land.

It seems to me that every year we come into session, we hope we can prove to the American people that we can do something. We say: Can't we prove that we can move? We are going to move this bill out of committee within 3 weeks. If the leader permits, we will bring it to the floor. We are going to tell the Senate: You can let us help the American people or you can play games; you can take 3 weeks on this bill. It doesn't require but 2 or 3 days of debate. If somebody wants to filibuster, that is learned quickly. Let us decide whether we want to kill the bill or not. At least everybody is going to know they are not all so tough, that we have to tell the American people we just can't do it, too complicated, too many committees, too much argument. Not so.

The highest supply production issue for the United States and our people today is this little bill. If we do it, we take one high- priority item off the table and we say: Well, we can do something for a change.

It is bipartisan. My good friend from my State and I have the luxury of being the only committee for many years which has two Senators from the same State being the lead Republican and the lead Democrat. We are going to bring this down here together. It was introduced together. We just had a press conference. We say the same things. We both speak differently, obviously, but we are going to do it because it brings immediate relief to millions.

That is probably 6 minutes instead of the 5 I reserved. If so, I ask consent that it be all right with the Senate.

I yield the floor.

That is correct. Not only is that correct, every single new powerplant--98 percent of powerplants built in the United States in the last 15 years--is natural gas.

Mr. President, I guess this shouldn't get me started because I should not be here, I have something else to do, but I guess when you are in the Senate, you ought to stay in the Senate.

But on liquefied natural gas--I might as well make sure the Senate hears this--we can't get along without liquefied natural gas for the next 25 years, and when you add up demands, unless something really breaks--maybe if we had all of the Alaskan plants for natural gas down here, but it takes long enough to--I think the statement is we must have energy. But we were counting on a lot of it. It is happening, however. It is being bought in place by foreign countries.

Let me tell you that what means. Qatar, a country with huge supplies of natural gas, may very well decide that they could sell the whole natural gas field to China. There won't be any ships on the sea on which to bid. That could happen.

Right now, natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas is not coming to America in large quantities. We need a lot more ports to get ready. But they are paying more for it to go to Spain than what we pay to bring it here because there is such a demand.

While we sit on the natural gas expecting LNG, the LNG is being bid up and going elsewhere, and we sit here wondering whether we should pass this bill to use our own, which is 100 miles offshore.

It isn't all so clear where we are going to get this natural gas, this beautiful product. It is so good that we burn it right in our kitchens. That ought to show you it is pretty safe. It is so good that we said no nuclear, no coal; let's just use it to make electricity. We decided to do that. That is when we got into this problem. I am not so sure we should have done it differently, but that is what happened.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns be made a cosponsor.

Mr. President, that bill was introduced yesterday. I don't have the number, but the clerk has it. Senator Sessions is not on that bill.

Mr. President, I wish to make two more observations while my friend from Alabama is still here, and one in a general way.

I say to Senator Sessions that we spoke a little bit about the Energy Policy Act which we passed last August. It is a phenomenal bill. People stopped paying attention to it. But in the proposals the President put forth, all but one of those were in the Energy bill. They are waiting to be funded. He proposed them, so we are going to fund them. But from that day that it was passed until today--on the day it was passed, there were zero applications, permit applications for nuclear powerplants. Zero. Today, there are 18. It is not in China that they want to build 20, or something like that; it is in the U.S.A. because of that bill. I am not saying all of them are going to be built, I am not saying they have turned a shovel, but clearly the strong indication from consortia and individual companies is that because of what we did in that bill, it is time to add to the diversity.

What does that mean? That means had we had those, we wouldn't have a natural gas shortage today because little of the gas would have gone into powerplants and would have been available for what we are arguing about today. We would have been able to tell Florida, although we don't think it is the case, You will never have to drill there, but that didn't happen. There are many other things that are going to happen because of that bill, but we didn't do this one, the offshore, because we were told there would be a filibuster on the bill, the big bill, and we had to make a decision. It was open and made right here. Everybody heard it. So now we have to take our one shot at a time. This is one.

My last observation would be just in advance--I know the floor is a valuable tool for every Senator. They can offer amendments, and they can delay things. We are going to work very hard to make this one, single, big consumer present all by itself. Please, if you have big ideas, we will bring another energy bill, and put it on that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to hold a lease sale within one year in the area known as 181. This bill does not in any way alter the moratorium law on the OCS. The areas covered under this bill are not under executive or congressional moratorium. Furthermore, this bill protects a 100 mile buffer from the coastline of the State of Florida and it protects the prerogative of the United States armed forces to perform military activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. These protections are explicit in the bill and can not be disputed.

But more than that, this bill seeks to protect the American people from the rising cost of heating their homes. Only six years ago, the price of natural gas in the U.S. was $2 per million btu. In the past few months, we have witnessed the price of natural gas rise above as much as $14 per million btu. This morning, amidst a winter of above- average temperatures throughout much of the United States, the price of natural gas was over $8 per million btu. In countries competing for our jobs, the price of the same commodity is substantially cheaper than that, in some cases one or two dollars per million btu. This increase in cost and volatility in the price of natural gas in the United States should have the immediate attention of our Nation's policy makers.

The effects of the rising price of natural gas cut across every major sector of our Nation's economy. Natural gas is used as a major source for electricity generation, home heating, cooling and cooking, and as an essential feedstock for the production of ammonia for use in fertilizer production. It is necessary to the manufacturing of fabrics, glass, steel, plastics and paint. In short, affordable natural gas is of relevance to every region and each State in this country and it is essential to maintaining our Nation's long-term sustained economic growth. Think of the one-two punch that will be dealt to the American consumer if the U.S. housing market fails to sustain its unprecedented growth of the last few years and energy costs continue to rise. The Federal Reserve estimated that in 2004, the American people had approximately $600 billion in their pockets from refinancing and home equity loans. But an increasing amount of that money is going right back out to pay the added costs of heating those homes. Over a six year period, America's natural gas bill has risen from $50 billion to $200 billion. That is $150 billion less that the American people have to spend, save and invest. And it serves as an additional burden on the businesses that drive this nation's economy. This burden acts as a tax on the American people and only serves to stymie growth.

With this bill we seek to alleviate some of that burden. We direct the Department of the Interior to lease an area that holds a potential of nearly 5 tcf of gas. That is enough natural gas to heat and cool approximately five million homes for a period of 15 years. The natural gas from this area will have a real, substantial effect on the market and thus on the American consumer. Opening up this area will send an immediate signal to the natural gas market that Congress is pushing to quickly open up an area for production with great potential for a significant new supply of natural gas. The area is close to existing infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico and is the best hope for a large infusion of natural gas on the market in the near term.

This bill presents a choice between affordable natural gas versus burying our heads in the sand while American people foot the bill and manufacturing jobs head overseas. There is certainly bipartisan support for the idea of relieving the energy costs of the American consumer, and I think that opening Lease Sale 181 helps us achieve this goal.

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

Mr. President, we get few opportunities to help usher in visionary projects that can potentially transform communities, both of man and of nature. I rise today to talk about such a project--one that has been discussed before on this floor when I helped unveil a vision that would rehabilitate and restore New Mexico's Bosque. I return here today to implement that vision that concerns this long neglected treasure of the Southwest.

According to an old Chinese Proverb, ``if you are thinking one year ahead, sow seed. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking 100 years ahead, educate the people.'' The bill I am introducing today encompasses the wisdom of that proverb.

The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.

Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is long: it has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous fuel have contributed to fires. As a result, public access is problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened.

Yet the Middle Rio Grande Bosque remains one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.

This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for generations to come--not only for generations of humans, but for the diverse plant and animal species that reside in the Bosque as well.

The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds, healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood trees. This project can increase the quality of life for a city while assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. Where trash is now strewn, paths and trails will run. Where jetty jacks and discarded rubble lie, cottonwoods will grow. The dead trees and underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress embrace that chance on this occasion.

Having grown up along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure, and I lament the degradation that has occurred. Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991, and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I propose to build on their efforts with the legislation I am introducing today.

I remain grateful to each of the parties who has been involved with this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component of the project. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (the ``MRGCD") owns the vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner that has worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor.

My bill authorizes $10 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2007 and such sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in building a place to treasure.

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

Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to hold a lease sale within one year in the area known as 181. This bill does not in any way alter the moratorium law on the OCS. The areas covered under this bill are not under executive or congressional moratorium. Furthermore, this bill protects a 100 mile buffer from the coastline of the State of Florida and it protects the prerogative of the United States armed forces to perform military activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. These protections are explicit in the bill and can not be disputed.

But more than that, this bill seeks to protect the American people from the rising cost of heating their homes. Only six years ago, the price of natural gas in the U.S. was $2 per million btu. In the past few months, we have witnessed the price of natural gas rise above as much as $14 per million btu. This morning, amidst a winter of above- average temperatures throughout much of the United States, the price of natural gas was over $8 per million btu. In countries competing for our jobs, the price of the same commodity is substantially cheaper than that, in some cases one or two dollars per million btu. This increase in cost and volatility in the price of natural gas in the United States should have the immediate attention of our Nation's policy makers.

The effects of the rising price of natural gas cut across every major sector of our Nation's economy. Natural gas is used as a major source for electricity generation, home heating, cooling and cooking, and as an essential feedstock for the production of ammonia for use in fertilizer production. It is necessary to the manufacturing of fabrics, glass, steel, plastics and paint. In short, affordable natural gas is of relevance to every region and each State in this country and it is essential to maintaining our Nation's long-term sustained economic growth. Think of the one-two punch that will be dealt to the American consumer if the U.S. housing market fails to sustain its unprecedented growth of the last few years and energy costs continue to rise. The Federal Reserve estimated that in 2004, the American people had approximately $600 billion in their pockets from refinancing and home equity loans. But an increasing amount of that money is going right back out to pay the added costs of heating those homes. Over a six year period, America's natural gas bill has risen from $50 billion to $200 billion. That is $150 billion less that the American people have to spend, save and invest. And it serves as an additional burden on the businesses that drive this nation's economy. This burden acts as a tax on the American people and only serves to stymie growth.

With this bill we seek to alleviate some of that burden. We direct the Department of the Interior to lease an area that holds a potential of nearly 5 tcf of gas. That is enough natural gas to heat and cool approximately five million homes for a period of 15 years. The natural gas from this area will have a real, substantial effect on the market and thus on the American consumer. Opening up this area will send an immediate signal to the natural gas market that Congress is pushing to quickly open up an area for production with great potential for a significant new supply of natural gas. The area is close to existing infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico and is the best hope for a large infusion of natural gas on the market in the near term.

This bill presents a choice between affordable natural gas versus burying our heads in the sand while American people foot the bill and manufacturing jobs head overseas. There is certainly bipartisan support for the idea of relieving the energy costs of the American consumer, and I think that opening Lease Sale 181 helps us achieve this goal.

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

Mr. President, we get few opportunities to help usher in visionary projects that can potentially transform communities, both of man and of nature. I rise today to talk about such a project--one that has been discussed before on this floor when I helped unveil a vision that would rehabilitate and restore New Mexico's Bosque. I return here today to implement that vision that concerns this long neglected treasure of the Southwest.

According to an old Chinese Proverb, ``if you are thinking one year ahead, sow seed. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking 100 years ahead, educate the people.'' The bill I am introducing today encompasses the wisdom of that proverb.

The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.

Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is long: it has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous fuel have contributed to fires. As a result, public access is problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened.

Yet the Middle Rio Grande Bosque remains one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.

This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for generations to come--not only for generations of humans, but for the diverse plant and animal species that reside in the Bosque as well.

The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds, healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood trees. This project can increase the quality of life for a city while assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. Where trash is now strewn, paths and trails will run. Where jetty jacks and discarded rubble lie, cottonwoods will grow. The dead trees and underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress embrace that chance on this occasion.

Having grown up along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure, and I lament the degradation that has occurred. Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991, and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I propose to build on their efforts with the legislation I am introducing today.

I remain grateful to each of the parties who has been involved with this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component of the project. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (the ``MRGCD") owns the vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner that has worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor.

My bill authorizes $10 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2007 and such sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in building a place to treasure.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's Proposed Budget for FY 2007 for the Department of Energy.

The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, February 9 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held at 9:30 a.m. on the same day, in the same room.

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

For further information, please contact Elizabeth Abrams at 202-224- 0537.

Subcommittee on National Parks

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

The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, February, 9, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the same room.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook on trends and issues affecting the United States' energy market.

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

For further information, please contact Lisa Epifani 202-224-5269 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2197, to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology, to strengthen basic research programs at the Department of Energy, and to provide support for mathematics and science education at all levels through the resources available through the Department of Energy, including at the National Laboratories.

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

For further information, please contact Kathryn Clay (202) 224-6224 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Dr. Ben Bernanke to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, or the Fed as it is commonly known, was created by Congress over 90 years ago to create a safe and stable financial system for the American people. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve must be a person of sound and prudent judgment and strong character. Throughout his academic and professional career, Dr. Bernanke has exhibited all these traits and I laud President Bush for nominating him to this important public position.

For the past 18 years, Americans have become accustomed to the sound analysis and policy judgments of outgoing Chairman Alan Greenspan. During this period, we as a nation have experienced several transformational events. The stock market crashed in 1987, a mere 2 months into Chairman Greenspan's tenure, and we have also dealt with financial crises in Asia, Latin American, and even closer, Mexico. The country has also suffered major natural disasters and terrorist attacks on our homeland. Throughout these occasions, Chairman Greenspan guided our Nation's financial markets with astute analyses and sound policy decisions. As a result, our economy has endured a number of shocks and continues to remerge from each stronger than it was before.

In his hearings before the Senate, Dr. Bernanke displayed the candor and intellectual gravitas that has endeared

him to colleagues and policymakers throughout his long and distinguished career. Dr. Bernanke was graduated from Harvard College with a bachelor's degree and he later went on to earn a doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Since then he has taught economics to students at some of America's most prestigious universities and has become a highly regarded scholar of banking and monetary policy. Dr. Bernanke has a history of public service, having served on his local school board in Montgomery Township, NJ, the U.S. Census Advisory Board, and most recently the Council of Economic Advisers.

Our economy faces a number of challenges in the near future. Some of which include the pressures on the Social Security system, rising health care costs, and stresses on the Federal budget. Dr. Bernanke promises to bring a sound, fair, and nonpartisan economic adviser to the President and Congress on a number of macroeconomic matters. I laud his desire to continue pursuing policies aimed at maximum employment and control over inflation.

Dr. Bernanke's qualifications for this job are impeccable, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination to be the fourteenth Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak about a very important issue, the competitiveness of the United States and our future standard of living and whether we are going to develop the brainpower in America to meet the challenges of the future.

I compliment two Senators who initiated this endeavor--Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. They asked me, as chairman of the Energy Committee, if they could pursue a study with recommendations about how to achieve competitiveness. They did that. Now we have the results of that evaluation in a major report hereinafter to be called the Augustine report, named after Dr. Augustine, former president of Lockheed Martin. Many people know of him in many capacities. That report recommends 20 specific ideas to get America back on the track of competitiveness in the world.

Today I want to tell Senators and the world that in a day of confrontation and partisanship the implementation of that study is encapsulated in three bills. The bills now have 53 cosponsors. Of those, 29 are Republicans, 24 are Democrats. The bills are S. 2197, S. 2198, and S. 2199. Three Senators of the 23 have cosponsored only one portion.

At this early date, to have that many cosponsors is rather historic. This means we are going to proceed with the legislation. I am going to yield some time now to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, closing by saying that the essence of this report says: America, produce better brainpower in math, science, and physics; produce more engineers of all types; produce more research in basic science; cause business to invest through tax credits--and do it as soon as possible. Without this, the report says, we will perish.

Lastly, I want my friend from Tennessee to listen to just one fact. We have at various times attempted to equate what we do with what we ought to do. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, recently shocked a DC audience with a troubling statistic. He said:

If you want good manufacturing jobs, one thing you could do

is educate more engineers. We had more sports exercise majors

graduate than electrical engineering majors last year.

Based on that statistic, he added:

If you want to be the massage capital of the world, you are

well on your way.

That is very interesting. With that, out of my time, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 3 or 4 minutes to speak to this bill, which is called the PACE legislation.

Mr. President, let me say what a privilege it is today to speak once again to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice and to the advice and consent function of the Senate.

I came here in 1972, so there have been a lot of men and women nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. In my time here, I have voted to confirm them all. I based my vote, first, on the fact that the President of the United States recommended them and second, on whether they were qualified. I determined whether they were qualified based upon outside evaluations and personal observations of those who knew, trained and taught that particular nominee. For example, I found Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who were confirmed 96-to-3 and 87-to-9, to be qualified. In my opinion, neither of those judges, based upon the way the Senate is doing things these days, would have come close to getting those kinds of votes. As a matter of fact, for those who threaten filibuster, I believe there is a serious question.

If filibusters would have been the rule of the day, at least one of those nominees might very well have been filibustered, and the filibuster might have been successful. But that wasn't the way things were done.

Qualification was the question upon which we based our decisions; that has changed. Rancor has taken the place of reason. Partisanship has taken the place of responsibility and fairness. At every step of the process with this nominee, the American people have seen what a confirmation process can turn into if it is not vested and fair, but is instead full of what can be considered as almost hatred, almost fire and brimstone. Our colleagues have focused on the negatives of everything, however small or irrelevant. Currently, the trend is not to do what we have done, which has resulted in some great judges, but rather to be fed by the flames of partisan special interests that want assurances--they want guarantees.

I personally believe this is a dangerous course, and I hope and pray that this will be the last time we follow such procedure. But I doubt that it will be, although I believe such actions are wrong. Rejecting the judicial philosophy tests being urged by some is absolutely imperative.

When we apply the appropriate test of qualification, there is no doubt that Judge Alito is qualified. He is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The American public realizes this and that is why they overwhelmingly indicate that we should get on with this and vote. It is clear that there has been no nominee--and the occupant of the chair has seen many--that has spread before the eyes of the Congress and the public more about themselves, their record, their philosophy, their vote,

their rationale, and their ethics than this man.

The President, indeed, took a big chance with this nomination because to have that much of a record and have a vote and all that goes with it here was, indeed, a giant risk. But it paid off because Judge Alito is what he purported to be--a scholarly, terrific judge, who is without any question, distinguished.

My second point concerns ``guarantees.'' I believe some members of the Judiciary Committee questioned this judge in an effort to get some guarantees about how he would vote. It is amazing to consider some of the Supreme Court Justices who have been approved by the Senate based on their testimony and their record, which were presumed to be commitments or guarantees as to how they would vote. We can look back to Justice Warren from California as well as two or three members of the Court right now. Those who voted for such judges could have, indeed, thought they were getting guarantees, and it has turned out not to be the case. Those judges' philosophy, their votes, and everything else has been different on the Court than what they appeared to be guaranteeing during the confirmation process.

There are no guarantees. Those who are making this a partisan fight won't say: We don't have any guarantees, on Roe v. Wade and many other issues, that Judge Alito will vote the way we want him to--they won't say they are doing that. They will use other words like ``I am bothered,'' but that is really their argument.

Now, as to the cloture vote this afternoon--we are going to do that. I have never had to make that vote in 34 years--on 11 Supreme Court nominees. I never had to make that vote. Why? Because this Senate has not used the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices. Some people say, oh, yes we have, or, yes, we almost did. But we did not, and we surely didn't when a majority was for the man or woman. That is the case here.

To have to take this route, I believe the process is headed in the wrong direction. To require cloture is not the way to do it. It is not in tune with the history of the Senate. It contradicts the significance of this body as a fair-minded, deliberative body. I regret to say that with no particular people in mind. If the shoe fits, fine. If it fits no one, fine. But this has turned into nothing more than a political war. Those who are going to vote to continue debate, many of them know that this man is as qualified as anyone we are going to get. He is as assured to make as good of decisions on behalf of the American people as anyone we are going to get. And he is equally as assured to vote different than many of us who will vote for or against him expect. Of that, I have no doubt.

I regret that it has taken us so long to confirm Judge Alito. I regret that it has turned into the spectacle that it has. But perhaps today we will invoke cloture, change things from where they are to where they should be, and with an up-or-down vote tomorrow, this deserving, honest, well-informed, good man will be confirmed.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a legislative package which we refer to as the ``Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act of 2006'' or the ``PACE'' Act. This legislation ensures that the United States continues to set the pace in science, and in the development of new technologies.

I know my colleagues Senator Bingaman, Senator Alexander, and Senator Mikulski share my conviction that this legislation addresses one of the most pressing challenges before us today. There are troubling signs that the United States is becoming less competitive in scientific and high-technology fields. Today, the United States is a net importer of high technology products. The U.S. share of global high-technology exports has fallen over the last two decades from 30 percent to only 17 percent.

The PACE legislation closely follows the recommendations made in a recent National Academy of Sciences report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The metaphorical storm is the challenge to our global competitiveness in science and technology. I want to congratulate Norm Augustine, who chaired the National Academy committee, and the members of his committee for producing such a comprehensive, ground-breaking report on this important issue.

The Augustine report makes 20 recommendations for U.S. schools, universities, research and economic policy. Our legislation will enact each of the recommendations. For example, our legislation doubles authorizations for basic research in the physical sciences by over the next 7 years. It also requires that at least 8 percent of Federal research budgets are allocated to high-risk, potentially high pay-off research. It will strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories.

We need to take U.S. competitiveness seriously. We need to take action to support our standard of living, and ensure we continue to grow and prosper. If we do not, we can expect other nations to rival our global competitiveness--and one day to surpass us.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three bills in the following order, the PACE-Energy Act, the PACE-Education Act, and the PACE-Finance Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a legislative package which we refer to as the ``Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act of 2006'' or the ``PACE'' Act. This legislation ensures that the United States continues to set the pace in science, and in the development of new technologies.

I know my colleagues Senator Bingaman, Senator Alexander, and Senator Mikulski share my conviction that this legislation addresses one of the most pressing challenges before us today. There are troubling signs that the United States is becoming less competitive in scientific and high-technology fields. Today, the United States is a net importer of high technology products. The U.S. share of global high-technology exports has fallen over the last two decades from 30 percent to only 17 percent.

The PACE legislation closely follows the recommendations made in a recent National Academy of Sciences report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The metaphorical storm is the challenge to our global competitiveness in science and technology. I want to congratulate Norm Augustine, who chaired the National Academy committee, and the members of his committee for producing such a comprehensive, ground-breaking report on this important issue.

The Augustine report makes 20 recommendations for U.S. schools, universities, research and economic policy. Our legislation will enact each of the recommendations. For example, our legislation doubles authorizations for basic research in the physical sciences by over the next 7 years. It also requires that at least 8 percent of Federal research budgets are allocated to high-risk, potentially high pay-off research. It will strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories.

We need to take U.S. competitiveness seriously. We need to take action to support our standard of living, and ensure we continue to grow and prosper. If we do not, we can expect other nations to rival our global competitiveness--and one day to surpass us.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three bills in the following order, the PACE-Energy Act, the PACE-Education Act, and the PACE-Finance Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 for the Department of Energy.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 9 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

For further information, please contact Elizabeth Abrams.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook on trends and issues affecting the United States' energy market.

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

For further information, please contact Lisa Epifani or Shannon Ewan.

subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. President, am I recorded?

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bill before us in one respect. I want to talk about ANWR. Actually, ANWR has been waiting too long to become part of the United States of America's inventory of reserves of crude oil for our people and for our future.

I had the luxury of going up there in the extreme cold to see what this is all about. I want to share with my fellow Senators a couple of facts that seem to be unnoticed. First of all, all of the activity that takes place with reference to drilling, takes place with reference to preparing, takes place with getting the oil ready to put into a pipeline--all of that activity takes place in the dead of winter. That means the roads are built on ice. That means the holes are drilled in the ice. That means the oil comes to the surface to be put into pipelines while it is below zero and everything is frozen.

So when Senators or visitors are taken there in the warm climate and they see the soft ground that you cannot hardly put a truck on, the marshes that everybody wants to preserve, everybody should understand that there is no activity taking place under those conditions. Everything is done--the drilling, the preparation, the production-- while it is all frozen. When the warmth comes, the activity disappears. What is left are a very few small signs of the activity of man that has produced oil.

I saw 60 acres of the Alaskan frozen tundra--60 acres--upon which an entire drilling operation took place, all in winter. That 60 acres was producing 150,000 barrels of oil a day. All that will be there are wellheads. Actually, as you drill, they look like little outhouses very close together, in which a well is drilled, and scores of underground wells are drilled from it, vertical and horizontal, taking the oil out of the ground, with no new holes. When you are finished, there will be the plugs on top of that and a station that pulls it together, and everything else will disappear, and out comes 150,000 barrels of oil.

Can you envision in this 1.5 million acres 2,000 acres of it being used in multiples of 60 acres to produce what is expected from ANWR? How will that harm anything--that 1.5 million acres? They always quote President Eisenhower. It was set aside and designated, written there that this might be important for our future because it has in it and under it petroleum and petroleum products. That was known when it was set aside. We have been sitting around waiting, this great country, to produce it.

The last point, they say it is not very important in terms of size. Mr. President, the reserves on that property, at $30 a barrel, were calculated to be the equivalent of the reserves in the State of Texas. Now we understand that at $60 a barrel it has probably doubled. That means it is more than the State of Texas. So for everyone who talks about a 1-cent impact on gasoline, maybe we could also say it is not very important, so why don't we close down all the wells in Texas; they are not very important. And they have a lot of environmental problems. They were drilled in a different era. If you are worried about the environment, take a flight over Texas--no aspersions on Texas because it is my State also. But that is a lot of oil, the equivalent of Texas, and to run around America and say it is not important is economic arrogance.

The United States needs oil that belongs to itself. We own it. I honestly believe, having seen it and studied it, that those who say we will destroy that part of the beauty of Alaska are missing the point. It will not even be seen. You will not be able to locate----

You won't be able to see or locate what transpired. Yet America will be safer. I hope we do this. This is the appropriate vehicle. I hope cloture is imposed.

Mr. President, I would like to honor and praise a long- time member of my staff, Julia Serna, who has served the people of New Mexico admirably. Julia works in my Las Cruces office and has been a member of my staff since April 1993. Julia will retire at the end of 2005.

Julia's positive outlook is remarkable, and her smile and zest for life is contagious. And her jovial attitude and eagerness to deal with challenges is commendable. So many of those from my home State have come to know and love Julia over the years. Julia has always been known as someone always willing to listen to my constituents and lend a helping hand.

During her work on immigration and veterans issues, she has gone to great lengths to help a great many people in my home State. Julia is loyal and is one on whom I have come to rely and depend. In that time, we have accomplished much, and I am extremely proud of those accomplishments. She will be greatly missed by me and my staff and by the people of southwestern New Mexico for whom she has worked for so many years.

Most importantly, Julia is my good friend. But the time has come. After over 12 years of service on my staff, I

know Julia's children Susie, Gabriel, Adolfo, and her grandchildren and great grandchild will be glad to be able to spend more time with her. As she begins her well-deserved retirement, I extend my best wishes to Julia and her family. Julia, for all you have done for me, and for all you have done for the people of New Mexico, you have my utmost respect and deepest gratitude. Thank you, for a job well done. We will miss those tamales at the office.