Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator has commented about this amendment and about my participation. I thank him for his comments and state it was a pleasure to work on it. I think it will accomplish something. The people want some hope that it is being looked at objectively. I am glad to be part of it.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, commonly known as FLETC. Since its inception in 1970, FLETC has provided primary and advanced law enforcement training for at least 81 Federal agencies. It also serves as the project manager for the International Law Enforcement Academies. Over the past three and one-half decades, FLETC has grown from a fledgling organization into the world's premier law enforcement training center. For this, and for the countless lives that have been saved by the proud graduates of FLETC, I extend my heartfelt congratulations.

When FLETC was first conceived 35 years ago, the training of Federal law enforcement agencies suffered from varying levels of quality. The costs of providing high-quality training were far too high for any single agency to bear. It was in these prevailing circumstances that people started to talk about standardizing and consolidating training operations for law enforcement agencies with similar operational skills. That FLETC has managed to save taxpayers dollars by creating high-quality and cost-effective training programs is a tribute to its leaders, instructors, and graduates.

I have a personal connection to FLETC because there is a FLETC campus in my home State of New Mexico. The town of Artesia in the southeastern section of New Mexico has played a special role in the history of FLETC. First opened in 1989, FLETC-Artesia is one of three full-scale residential training facilities currently in operation. Although originally a small college campus, FLETC-Artesia is now a 2,540-acre site that includes grounded aircraft, large classrooms, drug and fingerprint labs, physical techniques facilities, outdoor firearms ranges, vehicle proficiency courses, and a number of dormitory buildings.

These and other training tools have proven valuable to multiple Federal law enforcement agencies. In the weeks and months following the devastating attacks on September 11, 2001, the training environment at FLETC was reoriented to address the American people's demands for greater in-flight security. The number of students being trained at FLETC-Artesia swelled from an average of 150 per day to 700 per day as part of this mobilization. Air marshals continue to be trained by FLETC and the Federal Flight Deck Officer training module was transferred to Artesia in the fall of 2003. The Border Patrol has also consolidated its training activities in New Mexico. It is therefore no stretch of the imagination to say that FLETC-Artesia is at the forefront in protecting our Nation's skies and borders.

Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to those who have worked at FLETC over the past 35 years. They have done their country a great service. The fact that FLETC trainees continue to excel is a tribute to their hard work. I am proud to have played a role in establishing a FLETC campus in my home State and I look forward to working with FLETC in the future.

Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow New Mexicans, I recognize the outstanding achievements of the New Mexico Junior College baseball team and applaud their remarkable world series victory.

New Mexico Junior College, an institution with over 3,000 students, is located in Hobbs, NM. This southeastern New Mexico town is known for its abundant natural resources, agriculture, attractive yearlong weather, and small town charm. Hobbs has long been known as the hub of New Mexico's oil industry, and home to the world's gliding community. Now, Hobbs is the home of the No. 1 junior college baseball team in America.

The Thunderbird baseball team has a distinguished local and national reputation for excellence. More than 85 New Mexico Junior College players have been drafted by professional teams, and two of those recently won Major League Baseball championships with the Florida Marlins and Anaheim Angels. However, this is the first national championship in the school's storied baseball history.

The 2005 season added to the list of accolades for the New Mexico Junior College Thunderbirds. The team finished the season winning 55 out of 65 games, and outscored their opponents 44 to 19 during their championship run. Head coach Ray Birmingham won his 700th game along the way and received the award for NJCAA coach of the year. The team finished with the highest batting average in the country. Seven Thunderbirds, from a variety of positions, received all-conference honors.

Besides being great athletes, the Thunderbirds continue to show remarkable character off the field. Four players earned Academic All- American honors this season, highlighting the high academic standards of the program. I have always believed that the ability to shine on and off the playing field is a truly crowing achievement.

This New Mexico Junior College baseball team demonstrated remarkable teamwork and selflessness throughout the season. Players born in New Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Australia, Canada, and across the United States came together to realize their dreams this season. For that, and for all their accomplishments, I commend each and every player and coach of the Thunderbird team here in this Record. May their success be only a prelude to future accomplishments, and may they continue to represent their school, Hobbs, and the State of New Mexico with distinction.

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

The hearing entitled ``Climate Change Science and Economics'' will be held on Tuesday, September 20th at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366. This is a continuation of the hearing held on July 21, 2005.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the current state of climate change scientific research and the economics of strategies to manage climate change. Issues to be discussed include: the relationship between energy consumption and climate change, and the potential effects on the U.S. economy of climate change and strategies to control greenhouse gas emissions.

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: John Peschke or Shannon Ewan.

subcommIttee on National Parks

Mr. President, I rise to discuss, for a moment on the record, what I have been telling some Senators individually and in groups about the management of postdisaster activities in the Gulf Coast area. Let me begin by saying that I am not going to add to the various discussions being had about who should decide what persons, if any, made mistakes in terms of controlling this disaster, the scourge of this hurricane. Did somebody not do what they were supposed to do or did somebody do it too late? If so, who was it, when did the mistake occur, and why did the person act as they did? That is, who was at fault in responding to this natural disaster, if anyone. I am not talking about that. I hear the rancor and the partisanship in the discussion about who should do that.

I am talking about the fact that we have now the most difficult situation that America on its homeland has ever had to manage. We have never had anything as difficult as this to manage--the confusion, disrepair, individual suffering, displacement, hardship, property destruction, pollution. All of those things affected literally hundreds of thousands of people in three-plus States. We are currently in the immediate aftermath of the force that brought all those things upon us as a nation.

How many people have been displaced--sometimes called refugees, but they will not be referred to as such by me--how many men, women, and children? I understand that the numbers displaced due to a natural disaster before this did not exceed 30,000. It was something under 30,000. For this one disaster, there were over 450,000 people displaced. Anybody who thinks that what we have in place to manage a crisis of this magnitude is fine doesn't understand the proportions of this event. We don't have in place the tools, the wherewithal, the ability to manage this problem--not from the time of its arrival and not now, as we work to gradually make the situation better for everybody, to a point in time that we can take a deep breath and say: We have done as much as we can for as many as we can, and as far as our country and its people and its businesses and its charities are concerned, we have completed the task of responding to this emergency.

We don't have any way of doing that. Anybody who is sitting around here contemplating the work of its committee, be it a chairman of a committee or the chairman of a subcommittee, and thinking they know how to do that, let me tell you, they don't. I regret to say it. In all deference, I am one of those chairmen. I have a standing committee and a subcommittee. They are both involved in this event. One is Energy and Natural Resources. The other is Appropriations for Energy and Water, which is literally all the energy around there, pipelines and the like, and the Corps of Engineers. So I could be saying I will do my share. I will start having hearings. But I submit that this work that I would do and that any other committee of the Congress would do is as apt to be meaningless or wrong or moving in the wrong direction, when looked at a year from now, as it is to be appropriate.

It isn't that we are doing anything wrong; it is that we don't know what our goal is. We don't know where we are going. We know people need checks. We know people need money. We know people need accelerated Social Security and Medicaid benefits. We also know people need housing. But does that mean we should hold a hearing in the housing Appropriations Committee and decide: Here is a new program. We are going to fund the program. It will be grants and loans, 100,000 new houses for these people? Of course it doesn't mean that at all.

We need somebody to put the plan together and decide what the housing situation is going to be like for these people. Do we need interim help? Will that be vouchers? And who will start putting that together? I could go on. This is not because anybody has not done their job. Forget about that. Whatever the job that was to be done, right or wrong, is finished. What you have to do now is rehabilitate, replan, and put in place what must be done within the laws of America, with the dollars of our taxpayers.

I came here in 1972, believe it or not. I was 39 years old. I don't know how I got here or why I was here. I got a great big assignment, one committee, Public Works. You new Senators who worry about your committee assignments these days, I only had one. I got

a very auspicious job, too. I was ranking committee member on a subcommittee on disaster relief. I thought: Well, I will never have a hearing, but when I have been here long enough, I will go to another committee.

But lo and behold, Agnes hit. Agnes was a giant hurricane that caused a Northeastern flood, all the way through Pennsylvania. Sure enough, I went to work. I learned about disasters.

But what I also learned was that through the good wisdom of a Senator, who, as I now understand it, was Hugh Scott, the minority leader from Pennsylvania--he used to sit over here when we had very few seats on this side of the Aisle--he talked Richard Nixon into appointing a man to be in charge of the Agnes recovery named Frank Carlucci. You've all heard his name of late. However they found him, I don't know. They must have been clairvoyant; they must have known he was something super. He was President's Nixon's on the ground representative for Agnes for 3 or 4 years, and we came out of that. Today his job would be comparable to having all involved computers run out of one office by people in the executive branch of Government, as if the OMB moved over there to handle things. Everything ran according to plans that came out of Carlucci's office of recovery. Nixon did not use a Marshall plan. He put somebody in charge of telling us what resources we ought to use and what our options were.

From that, he went on to other areas of success, so they must have picked the right guy. He held two Cabinet positions. He was a great success in business. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about, but he was apparently a very talented man. Now this President ought to pick a very talented leader, someone who is not in the Government, for a similar task. I mean no offense to the current establishment working in the Gulf Coast. They are there because we had an emergency--a disaster. But they are not there to handle what is going to be about a 10-year recovery program.

I think the occupant of the Chair knows this. This recovery plan will go on long beyond the next 2 or 3 years. We better have our recovery efforts, and oversight of those efforts, occur in an orderly manner or can you imagine how many hearings we are going to have? Can you imagine how many committees are going to be involved in saying they are solving this problem? Can you imagine the number of press releases that will be issued by subcommittees that are holding hearings about fixing this thing? Can you imagine the laws they are going to bring down here to the floor to pass saying, we are solving Katrina? All those things ought to come out of somebody who is on the ground analyzing the situation.

I urge the President to act. Give the position whatever name you like. I hate to use the word ``czar''. It doesn't sound right to say ``commander.'' It doesn't sound right to say ``general.'' But they ought to put somebody in charge by executive order and give them the OMB type of office experts to help them analyze this situation and present to the Congress, through the President, the information we need for us to make the decisions about what policies we want.

Far be it from me to know much about managing things because I don't manage much except in my office, and I am not sure sometimes if a Senate office is even manageable. Whatever I have to manage, it probably has not been managed very well. Once I thought it was so important to manage that I hired somebody to see if they could write a manual on how you manage a Senate office. He was the greatest manager I had ever seen in New Mexico. He spent a year and a half working. He wrote a manual. When he was finished, he said: I guess I have tell you, you have to make this current about every week because things are so changeable here. So I don't know how to manage things.

But what I know is that what we have now cries out for a manager or we are going to have disorder following disaster. We are going to have money following money and then people asking: What wasn't done that should have been done? The sooner a manager is put in place, the better. I hope the President will act.

I thank the Senate for listening. I thank the Presiding Officer, because he is the only one who has to stay around here before we finish, and Senator Alexander for being a gentleman.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Energy bill now before the Senate?

Mr. President, might I ask, is the bill under controlled time?

On behalf of the leader, I am going to ask consent regarding the stacking of votes. It has not been done. I ask unanimous consent that we now resume consideration of the energy conference report--which is the regular order--for the final remarks; I further ask consent that following that 30-minute period, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the Interior conference report, Legislative Branch conference report, and the two votes in relation to the Energy conference report, as provided under the order, with 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.

Yes.

I say to the Senator from West Virginia, there is a unanimous consent agreement here that has

the time allotted until we are finished with the Energy bill, and the votes thereon. That will not be a long time. But everybody knows we have 30 minutes right now for the Energy bill, and after that we will commence voting on three bills that are before us. I would think the Senate would want to stay to that order.

Please. Surely.

Mr. President, I see Senator Bingaman in the Chamber. He is going to proceed, first, with the allocation of some of the time on his side of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Has the Senator concluded?

I assume that Senator Bingaman has another person he would like to yield to. I will yield to one of his, Senator Cantwell or Senator Salazar.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Cantwell.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not correct that the point of order is going to be made? Can that point of order be made so the Senator will not have to wait? Can it be made just before the vote on the Energy bill?

Otherwise it will be made then?

The Senator can make it just before the Energy bill vote and we have 2 minutes on each side then. So the Senator will not have to wait now on that.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be given 2 minutes and it not be included in the majority time.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

The gentleman is correct. We did not intend to revisit issues regulated under the GLBA, or provide the Commission with rulemaking authority over financial institutions regulated under Gramm- Leach-Bliley.

The gentleman is correct.

The gentleman is correct.

I thank the gentleman for bringing these issues to my attention.

That is correct.

That is correct.

Certainly.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague--Senator Bingaman--that FERC, if it determines that certain foreign transactions are covered by the language of section 1289, should provide expedited review and approval to the acquisition of a foreign utility by a holding company that has no retail customers in the United States and other transactions that raise no significant U.S. consumer issues. These types of transactions don't require FERC's scrutiny in order to ensure that American consumers are adequately protected.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff men and women who helped put this conference together be printed in the Record. I commend them.

Mr. President, this bill will produce more jobs for our country, more secure jobs, and we will be using cleaner energy in the future. This will happen across America, and it will happen in the State of Wisconsin.

Also, I would like to say to everyone here, our electrical system will be safer and more sound. We may very well have nuclear powerplants built anew for the first time in years. Renewable energy will be advanced and enhanced dramatically. Some do not believe ethanol will be a significant contributor to less dependence on foreign oil. They are mistaken. We will, within the next 7 or 8 years, make a major contribution to jobs, stability of the agricultural community, and the production of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline.

In addition, we will enhance our supply of natural gas, thus stabilizing the price, which is one of the most significant things for America's future. If we cannot do that and the reverse happens, we will export hundreds of thousands of jobs. While everyone thinks that the only problem is gasoline, the problem is far bigger than gasoline prices tomorrow morning; it is what will be the state of energy 5 and 10 years from now in the United States.

I can tell my colleagues, we will be safer, we will have more jobs, we will have an electric system that is safe and sound. We will have diversity of energy sources and supplies built in our country, spending our money, creating jobs, and much more.

Frankly, it is very easy to criticize a bill of this magnitude, and it is very easy to say we did not solve everything.

I close by saying there is criticism that we did not do anything to alleviate our great dependence on crude oil. I think we did. Hybrid cars are accentuated and pushed ahead by tax credits. I just explained ethanol. But if anybody thinks right now we can pass in the Congress a bill to substantially change the American way of using automobiles, I ask them to stand up, and we will put it on the Senate floor next week and see if they can do it. We cannot order Americans to buy smaller cars, little tiny cars, and we cannot order them to stop buying cars. That will happen. It is going to happen, and we are going to have more efficient ones clearly in short order in this country, but we cannot do everything in this bill. We have done a great deal.

My compliments to Senator Bingaman. I am glad this was a totally bipartisan bill, totally open in every respect. I think we have proved that on a major, contentious bill, we can have open, above-board, total participation by any Senator who wants to participate. In conference, the same with the press of having all of the amendments and everything we do so they can do what they would like with the American people and yet get an agreed-upon bill.

That is a pretty good accomplishment on the part of Senator Bingaman, myself, as the leaders in the Senate, and Congressman Barton and Congressman Dingell in the House.

I yield the floor and thank the Senate for permitting me to produce this bill.

Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time on the Interior conference report.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Interior conference report.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

What is the issue before the Senate?

I understand the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin desires to make a point of order.

Was the motion just made?

I move to waive the point of order subject to appropriate provisions of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I have 2 minutes; is that correct?

One minute. First, this is almost not a point of order. It is $40 million a year. That is because we had $2 billion in direct spending, $2 billion in this whole bill. What we did, when we ended up doing all of the estimating, it was 2.2. So anybody who thinks this point of order is a real budget point of order, it is a nothing point of order. Many times the budget process takes $50 million and rolls it because they are trying to make things meet, and here we are having a point of order making it sound like a bunch--$40 million.

The last comment is this bill reduces the deficit because the tax writing committee came in $6 billion under. We are $200 million a year over. Do the arithmetic. The bill reduces the deficit; it doesn't raise it. I think this is the very reason the waiver provisions in the Budget Act were provided, for mistakes like these in estimating. That is why we have a waiver section. Members should vote in favor of the Domenici motion to waive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the highway bill conference report. I want to first applaud the chairman, my good friend Senator Inhofe, for all of his hard work on this important legislation. I also want to thank the ranking member of the EPW committee, Senator Jeffords, for his work on the bill.

The highway bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Senate undertakes. This bill makes it possible to construct and repair vital transportation arteries that crisscross this great Nation. As our country grows we must be conscious of our transportation needs. Accordingly, this bill increases funding for road construction that will substantially reduce traffic delays that plague the country. Additionally, this bill substantially increases transit funding further reducing congestion and pollution caused by overpopulated highways.

This bill will provide roughly $1.76 billion in funding for New Mexico over the next 5 years. The New Mexico projects that made it into this bill will be instrumental in continuing our push for economic development. The money for Double Eagle II Airport will play heavily in making this new facility a leader in aircraft manufacturing. Additionally, as our population continues to grow, the money for the extension of University Boulevard will allow this growing portion of Albuquerque direct access to other parts of the city.

This bill also contains vital funding for the southern portion of New Mexico. This bill contains $5 million for reconstruction of NM-176. This road will be a key component in making the LES plant in Eunice a success. Finally, this bill provides $7 million for reconstruction of the I-10/I-25 interchange and $2 million for road work on I-10 itself.

This bill also increases funding for the Indian Roads Program. I have advocated for increased Indian roads funding for a number of years and while this increase only begins to address the need, it will help immensely in addressing the economic development problems facing Indian Country.

Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking member of the EPW Committee and their staff for doing a great job in getting this bill completed.

Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3512, which was received from the House.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.

Yes.

I think it is a matter of whether the Senate confers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 5 minutes, the junior Senator from Tennessee be given 4 minutes to speak.

Madam President, I rise today before we leave on this recess to tell the Senate and those interested in how we do the people's business, what a successful 6 months we have had in the Senate. I have been here a long time. I believe this first 6 months has been like a great marathon runner. We started off slow and crossed the finish line a winner.

About 4 hours ago, we passed the first comprehensive Energy bill in about 14 years. We have been trying for 6 years, and now it is done. The Senate did that in a bipartisan way, and we worked with the House and got a great policy for our Nation.

A few moments ago, we passed a comprehensive Transportation bill for all of our States and our people, and regardless of what is said about it, in meticulous detail it is a terrific jobs package and infrastructure building bill for America.

In addition, I submit that we have also accomplished some things we never were able to do: we enacted a bankruptcy reform act. I know people wonder why that is important, but we will not talk about why. Let's just say credit is the lifeblood of our Nation. If something is wrong with the credit system, you have to fix it. We have been waiting around to fix the bankruptcy law, which is an integral part of the credit system, for at least 5 years. We passed the bill about three times in the Senate and, yes, in this particular 6 months, we did that. We sent it to the House and it is a law.

The budget resolution, I did them for years--let's be honest, for 31 years. This new Senator produced, under our leader's leadership, the fifth fastest budget resolution, and he got it in on time.

The emergency supplemental was as big as many appropriations bills, gigantic--for Iraq, the tsunami, and we provided real help for the borders of our country. Five-hundred new Border Patrol people were in that bill, along with other things.

We included, since then, in an Interior appropriations bill, which also passed, veterans funding of $1.5 billion.

Let me go on with the list. After the emergency supplemental, we did six judges who had been filibustered for months upon months.

We did CAFTA. That is the last of a long list of American free-trade agreements. This one, for a change, went our way. It was taking off tariffs that were imposed mostly on us, instead of the other way around.

Now, 5 of the 12 appropriations bills have passed. All of the appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, except one. I didn't check the history, but I think that is close to a record.

We confirmed the Secretaries of State, Justice and Homeland Security. We confirmed the Director of National Intelligence. That is the equivalent of another Cabinet seat.

We also passed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We did, a while ago, a very important piece of legislation, gun liability reform. People wonder what that has to do with--as we say out in the country-- the price of eggs. I will tell you, it is important legislation, too. It conformed liability, as far as the liability of those who manufacture, which is growing out of proportion to our regular negligence laws, and put that under some kind of reasonable control as far as the liability of manufacturers, those who build firearms. If these gun manufacturers went out of business, we would have had to get guns produced overseas, and that would not have been good.

The reason I did this kind of litany of successes is that it didn't just happen. It didn't fall down from the sky. It happened because we have real leadership. I believe it is because of our majority leader, Bill Frist, and Mitch McConnell, our whip. I give them extreme credit. I also say that much of this has been bipartisan--at least I can speak for myself. We would not have had an Energy bill without bipartisan leadership. Part of the year we didn't have it, let's be honest. We had the minority trying to move the other way on almost everything. I must say the new minority leader said he was going to try to move in a way to help get things done. I think this list, to some extent, indicates that is occurring.

Before we leave, I think it is always good to remind ourselves of what we have done so we can take home a recollection, kind of a roadmap of accomplishments. I might have left something out because I just did this this afternoon. It took about 30 minutes, so it is no masterpiece, but I think it is pretty accurate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, it is obvious that I am two things tonight. First, I am very happy and I am very tired. I do not know which one I am more of, but I am both. I am sure there are many who think differently than I. I hope in the Senate there is an overwhelming number who think as I do. There will be some who do not. But after 6 years of effort in the Senate, and for a time period going back about 15 years, we have not had an energy policy program of any significance for the United States of America. When I say 6 years, we have been struggling for 6 years to get a current one, and 4 of those years we have produced them and they have failed. I have not been part of all of that, but I left the Budget Committee, the Senate might recall, after many years, with 2 years remaining to be there. That would have made my 30th year on the Budget Committee, and I still would have been chairman. I left it because this would be a nice challenge, and I thought maybe during the 6 years, as chairman of this committee, I might be party to putting together a bill that might do something about America's energy future.

Everybody should know that the Senator from New Mexico knew that we would not do anything for tomorrow, nothing much. We would not have any answers for people who said, what are you going to do tomorrow morning or next week on the gasoline prices? But I did know that we had a chance of doing something that we could come to the floor and say within 5 to 10 years this bill will create jobs, job security, and clean energy.

Now, if that can be done in the complicated maze that we call the energy policy of the United States--and let me repeat, the reason that we can say to Americans that they have more jobs, they will have job security and have cleaner energy being produced, I almost asked, and I will, who could ask for anything more? I think that is a song or something, but who could ask for anything more?

So I start by saying I was very lucky today. I got a call from a reporter for the Albuquerque Tribune. I do not know him very well, but I speak to him occasionally, and I say to my friend from Tennessee, he asked me a neat question. He asked: Senator, people are talking about and maybe nitpicking this bill, and I want to ask you, what do you think things will look like in America with reference to energy 5 to 10 years from now?

That was a terrific question because it permitted me to open my remarks tonight the way I should have over the last couple of months. For once, the Congress is going to do something important from which we as a Nation will benefit, not tomorrow but in the next 5 to 10 years. Certainly, we will begin to feel it in a big way within the next 5 to 10 years. One might say therefore that we could have put most of it off, and we probably would have eked along and would have had some difficult times, but we could have said, it will work out. But what we have done is to make sure that where we have the power, we have done something to make it better.

I repeat, energy is the reason we have jobs. Energy is the reason we have warm homes, electricity, automobiles, everything we look at, humankind-made movement and activity, based on energy use.

That means it is pretty important that we do it somewhat right. Some

may say it will all work out. This is a great, powerful nation, everybody will wiggle and do this and do that and it will come out. Well, believe me, after a year and a half of learning, I think it would have been a real risk for America to say it will all work out.

What we have done is very complicated. It is a lot more than people speaking about gasoline prices tomorrow morning. It is a lot more than that.

So 5 to 10 years from now, we ought to look back and ask: Did this legislation make a real difference?

I am going to start by saying something nobody cares about when they lobby us, but I am going to say that we are going to use less energy per person, per adult, per unit of our economy, sometimes called GDP, because of the efficiency and conservation provisions here than we would have without it. That means simple things, believe it or not, in an energy bill, such as the appliances in our kitchens, the motors used in manufacturing plants, the buildings we live in, and the houses we live in will be far more efficient and use far less energy 5 to 10 years from now than today. For everything we use less of, we need to burn less coal or produce less energy or electricity or import oil less.

More of our electricity will come from renewable energy in 5 to 10 years, such as solar, biomass, wind, landfill gas, waste. All kinds of things that can produce energy in that manner will be coming on board or be on board.

We have streamlined the tax provisions. The licensing processes for clean technologies like geothermal have been streamlined so we will get whatever we have instead of letting it be tied up forever.

Then we are going to be making great strides toward reducing the carbon intensity of our economy. It is the carbon intensity of our economy that causes significant pollution, and for many it is a source of global warming.

My colleagues do not have to believe that to vote for this, but what I am saying is that for those who do--and I am one--this bill will move us forward so that 5 to 10 years from now we can be saying we may have technology that will go after that carbon. One will be new nuclear powerplants. I say to the Senator from Idaho, if a nuclear powerplant cannot be built in America after this bill is signed, then I think the Senator and I, who have been ardent, devoted fans, will say it cannot be done. I think the Senator will agree with that. Everything that can be done reasonably will be there. The uncertainties will be eliminated. That which frightens investors will be eliminated. The other things are all in place.

With reference to coal, we will have provided incentives and tax relief so that new technology will be developed to take carbon out of the coal that is burned and, yes, if we use the outside of my years, in 10 years we may, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, have found a way to sequester the carbon and indeed be on the way to being able to use our biggest resource, to wit, coal, without atmospheric damage, global damage, and with much cleaner effect. This bill might make that happen.

As I say, when people think of the Energy bill, they think of cars, automobiles, but the electricity grid of the country--how many people on our committee thought we were going to learn about the electricity grid, such as when eastern America went black, but we found out. We have a great electricity system.

When the blackout came, some people called this an ancient system. Some called it a one-horse system. No, it is the most refined. The problem is that the system was not tied together properly, and it did not have mandatory requirements for safety. So there were some good, some not so good. That transmission grid will be far more reliable because we have put on the grid owners mandatory standards for operating that grid. So I would say you will not have one of those after this bill gets implemented. That would have been good enough to pass a bill, but that is just a little part of the bill--one or two pages.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes. I ask Senator Bingaman, would that be all right?

In addition, we will be building new transmission to move electricity around the Nation. When I say ``we,'' don't think the Government is going to do it. We are just going to make sure we give the incentive to get it done. Transmission to move electricity around the Nation, where it is needed the most--that is going to make our consumption more efficient.

This bill repeals an ancient law. Some people wonder why it even mentioned it because it has a funny name and they would say what in the world does it have to do with energy, but it is called P-U-H-C-A, PUHCA. It is from the times when we had our Great Depression. It made it at least more difficult to get money invested in electricity and utility companies than it was in other enterprises. We have repealed that. We have made some provisions that mergers will not be damaged. But this should bring much more capital investment into the utility companies that make up this powerful institution, this entity called the grid of the United States.

Most of us are aware of another thing, which the distinguished Senator, a new Member of the Senate and a new member of the committee, the Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, has put much in the public eye when he introduced a bill about natural gas. One of our biggest problems, and we surely ought to be as worried about it as we are about the price of gasoline tomorrow, is our dependence upon imported natural gas. It is such a terrific product, from the standpoint of our ambient air, and it used to be so cheap, as everybody here knows. But what happened is we used it for everything. Now, as we get in trouble with global warming, everybody who builds a plant uses natural gas. Not that it does not produce some carbon, but far less. And the price goes up.

So it looks as if America, which is paying the highest price of any industrial nation in the world for natural gas, is about to put itself out of business. We could lose the fertilizer business, the plastics business, many manufacturing companies. They are already going overseas. People will come up here and blame free-trade agreements, or low pay overseas. That is not so. We do not have enough natural gas to keep the price steady or bring it down. We must have liquefied natural gas from overseas. It is terrible to admit it. I wish I were here saying we don't. We do. In the next 25 years we will have a crisis if that doesn't occur.

We have modernized, streamlined, eliminated unnecessary delays in the ports we will be bringing to America that will be the source of distributing LNG. We have eliminated the unnecessary delays. That is terrifically important. Of the five most important things, one might say that would be one of them because we might hit 8, 10, 12, 15--one study says 23--new ports will be needed to use LNG in inland America. In other words, you locate them and then the gas can be put into pipelines and delivered to America's users. We permitted that to be done with more dispatch.

For the first time, and we know this, since Americans began a love affair with the car, we are going to put in place an ethanol program.

I ask for 5 additional minutes.

People used to laugh at it. Let me put it this way. It is not too shabby, to put America's agricultural industry to work making fuel for vehicles. Some used to say that was foolish. It might have been when crude oil was $5 a barrel, or $10. But it certainly is a good investment when crude oil is this expensive because all you are doing is trading the investment in ethanol--plants, cement, steel, thousands of jobs, agricultural revitalization--every dollar you put in that is a dollar you didn't give to the Saudi Arabians or you didn't give to those who are selling us oil. You spent it here. We have a major new program, 7.5 million gallons mandated out here in the future. So that should be very helpful, in terms of jobs and helping with our importation.

We also gave significant credits for hybrid automobiles. I think we all know we had that. We doubled it. We know people want them now. But we still put it in, the tax writers put it in, and we hope the manufacturers will see the demand and get more on board quickly. We think that was a contribution.

I think overall we are going to try to produce as much of our energy domestically as possible. To do that we have streamlined the permitting processes where we can. For instance, the Senator from Colorado is on the Senate floor, and the Senators from Utah have been interested--we have a fantastic oil shale research and development program and provide leasing to see if we, one of these days, could implement the abundant oil resources from oil shale. Nobody knows if we could ever work that economically. If we could, we would not need any imported oil. We have more oil locked up in oil shale than America would use over 200 years. We just have to find a way to convert it. We are close. We are going to push that.

We are deeply divided on global climate change. We have had a couple of votes. I will not go through them. But the legislation we are doing, while it does not address a global warming tax, will do more to develop and deploy a new generation of clean technology that will make our consumption cleaner and more environmentally friendly. If we ever do achieve a limit--say that, make the limit there--we may, indeed, have ready the technologies that could do it. Right now we are just saying, Do it. That is why Senator Craig gets up and says, How? Right? I am speaking for him--but how? Put everybody out of business?

No. New technology we are going to try to get developed will clean the coal--take the carbon out of it, I should say. These are the kinds of things that are in this 1,200-page document.

I want to close. I am a pretty experienced fellow around here. I want to say that I have never worked in the process on a difficult bill where there has been more openness and inclusiveness in my 32 years. Every step of this process this Senator has worked with the other Senator from New Mexico to ensure that we have a bipartisan bill.

That doesn't mean that Senator Bingaman likes every provision. It doesn't mean that I like every provision. But nobody can say that anything was done in one closed back room, shoved down anybody's throat, or done without staff, excellent staff, on both sides working on it. I am thankful. Because of that, Senator Reid joined our leader and let us get this bill to the floor.

We took 2 weeks. Heretofore we took 6 weeks, and still had 200 amendments left. We didn't get a bill, a real bill.

Believe it or not, Representatives Dingell and Barton met. Ourselves, we spent 20-plus hours as a foursome. Then we had 3 days, 5 open days of conference meetings with amendments being offered. Every conferee could offer amendments. They were voted on, some won, some lost-- honestly most lost, but that is the way it is. They voted.

The last of those conferences ended a couple of nights ago at 2:30 in the morning. I probably was more tired then than now, obviously. Maybe not as happy because I didn't know the product. But I think I know the product now. It is finished. It is a good product. It should pass overwhelmingly.

I urge Senators to consider that this bill, and the future that it envisions, far outstrips anyone's individual parochial concern. I hate to say that because nobody is going to say that is why they vote against it. Nobody is going to say I didn't get some project or some one theme. But I think if you are looking at what might be good down the line--which maybe we ought to do more of--you ought to vote for this.

One last comment. There will be a point of order made, and tonight I am going to say while everybody is around, or a few are: You heard a lot of numbers about what this bill costs. Please understand the point of order has to do with none of that. The point of order has to do with a simple thing. This committee was given $2 billion to spend, in direct spending, nonappropriated money. When all the work was done we estimated it was $2.2 billion--two billion two hundred million--not billion--$200 million. You know, the budget is hundreds of billions. This is $200 million. I don't even know why a point of order should be made.

I am going to cheat and tell you, sometimes when I was budget chairman we rounded numbers to 100. I am confessing that belatedly. Maybe we would have rounded this one to 200. Anyway, that is what we are going to vote on. I hope, even if you are against the bill, you will let us vote whether or not the country should have this.

With that, I thank the Senate, thank the Chair, and most important, thank the Senators here. For the Republican Senators, as soon as Senator Bingaman is through I will start allocating on our side 5, 7 minutes, whatever you each would like. Senator Bingaman will use what he wants and allocate the rest. He has one Senator. We will stay as long as you like.

Thank you all for listening.

I know Senator Kerry wants to speak, but I would like to ask that we may have time to arrange all of this right now. My next speaker is Senator Craig. I would like to yield 5 minutes to him and then we go to somebody on your side.

I might ask the Democrat side, since we have two Senators with 5 minutes each, would it be fair to say we go back and forth with 5 minutes?

You have 30.

I am not going to limit you. You have an order. I am just talking about sequence.

I did. I am wrong, so I am telling you you have 30; you are going to get 30. It is just a question of when.

So what we are saying is the Senator from New Mexico can speak for 90 minutes. I don't want to do that. I want to let my Senators speak, so I would like to change that. If we don't change it, I will speak for 90 minutes.

I know I was. I would like to allocate if I could. If Senator Kerry is going to speak 30 minutes, I would like to have Senator Craig and Senator Thomas speak for 5 minutes each. That is 10 minutes. And then we go to Senator Kerry for his 30. Then we come back to Senator Alexander for his 5, and then we go back to Senator Wyden for as long as he would like.

Is that fair enough, Senators?

Fair enough. Thank you. I yield the floor.

I will yield very soon to Senators.

I make one observation and ask one question and then I will yield to my friend from Wyoming.

First, fellow Senators, Senator Bingaman mentioned something about renewables. I failed to mention, while we did not accept the Bingaman amendment, the tax portion of this bill allocates the largest percentage, largest piece of the tax incentives to renewables, to wind. Some did not like that. Some think it is great. One of the Senators is here and smiling. He did not like that. But that means as much wind energy as you can throw for the next 3 years, as much as you can manufacture and use, will be manufactured and used. Hopefully during that period of time Senator Bingaman can return and speak more to the issue of longevity and continuity.

I thank two people: Alex Flint, my staff director, and Bob Simon, the staff director of Senator Bingaman. It is fair to say they have become friends, too, just as my friend Senator Bingaman and I have.

With that, we have the order for the next hour or so. I will leave for a while and leave it to one of my friends. Senator Murkowski is the last one, although we have not provided for her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would be happy to. Senator Bingaman is correct. We had agreed upon text for insertion into the managers' statement on a number of provisions, but it was left out in order to file the conference report in time for us to complete our work this week. I agree that those explanations should be placed on the record for the information of all Senators.

Senator Bingaman is correct. Section 210 was specifically drafted to address the concern he identified by focusing on nonmerchantable biomass that would not otherwise be used. It was our intent that the Secretaries implement the grant programs with sensitivity to alternative uses--both current and future--for the byproducts of preventive treatments, to the affects of other grants or support for encouraging the use of forest biomass that are provided pursuant to any other authority, and to the potential for alternative uses to provide a greater return to the taxpayer in the long run.

The Senator is correct. It is my understanding that the transfer of the matter under section 347(a)(2) does not affect or otherwise modify the standard for activities undertaken pursuant to Public Law 96-514. The Senate included language in section 107(b) of the Senate bill relating to mitigation of adverse effects that the managers have not adopted as unnecessary. It is the understanding of the managers that the Department of the Interior is interpreting the current standard in the manner set forth in the Senate language.

I would be happy to, Mr. President. The managers recognized the large supply of energy resources existing on Indian lands, as well as the desire of many Tribes to increase access to those resources. The Indian Energy title is designed to provide economic development opportunities to Indian tribes by assisting and empowering them to develop and utilize tribal energy resources in a manner that meets the needs of Indian country and the Nation as a whole.

The title will also continue and strengthen efforts to improve access to electricity for native people who are ten times more likely to be without such access than their counterparts residing outside of Indian reservations. Of particular note, is the creation of a new Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy that is dedicated to working with Indian tribes on energy development matters.

The Title also creates a new program in section 503 related to energy leases, agreements, and rights-of-way on tribal lands that continues a policy of promoting tribal self-determination while preserving the trust relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government. The leases, agreements, and rights-of-way section preserves the full application of Federal environmental laws while authorizing eligible Tribes to approve individual energy projects without duplicative Federal approvals.

The title contains several other provisions, all of which the managers believe will provide significant benefits to Indian country.

Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems.

In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began in 1999. The drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental groups to file the lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court. After the district court issued a decision, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held that the Endangered Species Act required that water should be taken away from municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico, the ruling rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those who are entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande.

In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of the program is especially marked when one considers that the program has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision making hierarchy, and formal authorization.

I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource management challenges.

I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman, who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems.

In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began in 1999. The drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental groups to file the lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court. After the district court issued a decision, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held that the Endangered Species Act required that water should be taken away from municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico, the ruling rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those who are entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande.

In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of the program is especially marked when one considers that the program has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision making hierarchy, and formal authorization.

I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource management challenges.

I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman, who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

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