Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of New Mexico's finest public servants, Sheriff Juan Hernandez of Las Cruces whom I am honored to consider a good friend as well.

There are few people in my State's history who have been honored with a special day to recognize their legacy and accomplishments. On December 31, 2004, the Dona Ana County Commission honored retiring Dona Ana County Sheriff Juan Hernandez for his 6 years of service by proclaiming Friday the 31st as Juan Hernandez Day.

Today, I seek to honor this man who has given greatly to his community and to the people of Dona Ana County through his allegiance to public service. Juan has worked in law enforcement for 34 years with both the Sheriff's Department and the Las Cruces Police Department. He served as the Dona Ana County Sheriff from January of 1999 to January of 2005, and I believe it is for this post Juan will always be remembered.

In this elected position, Juan sought not to just serve his county but to find ways to improve it. Though his official title was ``Sheriff,'' he earned himself an added title as the ``Grant Writing Machine.'' Over the past 6 years, Juan Hernandez secured $4.8 million in Federal grants for a variety of programs whose missions ranged from combating drug use and drunk driving to fighting crime and terrorism within the county.

Juan Hernandez's accolades are numerous and his hard work undeniable. While I could certainly continue at great length in listing his accomplishments, I believe his own words most eloquently describe the man behind the badge: ``When you really make an effort to make a difference, the rewards are greater than you can ever imagine.''

I feel especially honored to have seen this man's work first-hand and to have joined his efforts over the past years to develop Dona Ana County. Juan, you have made a difference in many lives, and for that you have my and the State of New Mexico's continued respect and admiration.

I wonder if, in regular order, would it be appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico and two Senators to speak for 3 minutes on the bill?

Mr. President, we will soon vote this morning on final passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I hope and expect that my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly to pass it for a number of reasons, but I want to concentrate on two of the most significant.

First, this bill is a huge step forward in our quest to enact policies that will ultimately move us away from our dependence on foreign sources of energy. There are no quick fixes for the predicament we have created for ourselves over the past 50 years.

But Senator Bingaman and I, of all people, are keenly aware of the promise that research and development of new technologies holds for our future energy independence. He and I have had the good fortune to witness the tremendous accomplishments of the scientists at Los Alamos and Sandia over the years. We know that partnerships in science and technology between the government and the private sector can spur significant advancements in technologies we need for our future--a future where we become more productive, more efficient, less dependent on foreign sources, and more protective of our environment in the process.

We have provided in this bill the opportunities for those partnerships as well as other incentives for the private sector to make the advances we need to have for our energy future.

Secondly, this is a bipartisan product that deserves broad support. Senator Bingaman and I have worked together on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for over 20 years.

We have struggled through the issues we address in this bill for many years. Over the past six months, we have garnered the fruits of that association into this bipartisan bill to create what I believe is a fine product to get us started on solving our energy problems.

This bill isn't perfect. No bill ever is. But Senator Bingaman and I believe it is a worthy product that deserves your support. We look forward to a speedy conference with the House of Representatives and hope to soon deliver a conference report to this body for passage.

I also express my sincere thanks to my staff, as well as Senator Bingaman's staff, for their many, many days of long hours and hard work to make this bill a reality. They have been open to all of you and your staffs, and, I believe, have honestly attempted to address any issue Senators have brought to them.

I especially want to thank Alex Flint, Staff Director, and Judy Pensabene, Chief Counsel, for managing this entire process. Other members of the staff who also lent their expertise and professionalism to the process are: Carole McGuire, Deputy Staff Director; Karen Billups, Deputy Chief Counsel; Counsels Kellie Donnelly, Lisa Epifani, and Frank Macchiarola; Professional staff members Dick Bouts, Kathryn Clay, Frank Gladics, Josh Johnson, John Peschke, and Clint Williamson; Mamie Funk, Communications Director, and Angela Harper, Deputy Communications Director; Colin Hayes, Legislative Aide; Carol Craft, Chief Clerk; Cherstyn Monson, Executive Assistant; and Staff Assistants David Marks, Amy Millett, and Steve Waskiewicz.

Lastly, I sincerely thank the majority leader and his excellent staff for helping us shepherd this bill through the Senate.

I believe today we will pass, for the first time in many years, a new policy for the United States with reference to our energy production, the energy needs of the future.

I think this is a very good bill. I think it will provide us with a significant number of alternative energy supplies, all of which will be predicated upon the proposition that energy should be clean, the energy that we produce in the future; much of it should be renewable; that, indeed, we have conservation; that nuclear should become part of our arsenal; that, in addition, innovation will be the order of the day.

Along with production of ethanol, the rest of the bill will produce jobs, jobs, jobs, and will secure jobs for our future.

With reference to natural gas, one of our most significant and serious problems today, we hope that there will be a new and invigorated supply which will give us an opportunity to have prices for natural gas stabilize or even come down, without which we have a very difficult future for millions of jobs that are dependent upon natural gas or derivatives from natural gas.

All in all, I think this is an exciting and good bill. I thank the Senate for its support, the leader for his support, Senator Bingaman for his support. This is truly the first major bill in a long time that is bipartisan in nature. That made it possible, and I am very proud to have been part of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

How much time does the Senator want?

Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may use.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, shortly the Senate is going to vote. We are going to have a cloture vote to decide whether we should bring closure to

what I think has been an excellent 2 weeks of debate about a new American policy, a policy which is directed at trying to make our energy supply for the future more secure for our domestic growth and for our national security.

We have been waiting a long time for this day. If the Senate, indeed, at its pleasure, grants cloture, which I hope we will, it means we will bring to a conclusion in short order a long debate and fulfill a longstanding need for an American energy policy that is encapsulated in this bill, which was produced by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee over weeks of hearings and day after day of debate, with voting, and finally concluding that the bill that is before us is the right thing to do.

Since then, the Senate has exercised its right to offer amendments and discuss them. Some amendments were adopted to change, alter what the committee recommended. But in essence, fellow Senators, we have a rare opportunity today, in a reasonable period of time--not with acrimony but with debate--to pass this legislation. That is, in a sense, consistent with the best of the Senate: having amendments openly debated, many of them; views, some in accord with the bill, some in opposition to the bill here on the floor, as witnessed by those who pay attention to what goes on in the Senate.

So I say, as one who has been a participant for a few years, this is an effort to bring this matter to a vote in the Senate so we can bring this legislation to the House of Representatives. Our Constitution requires that both Houses agree on the legislation. Some do not understand that our Constitution is rather conservative when it comes to passing legislation. You do not just have your vote in the Senate; the House has theirs. Then you have to go to conference and agree on the same text in both Houses, which is done by a committee called a conference committee.

That will occur only when we have voted out a bill. We will vote out a bill only when we have completed debate under our rules. We probably will not conclude debate for a long time unless cloture is imposed.

I believe on a domestic bill, cloture should not be invoked arbitrarily or in advance of a reasonable amount of time. People should be permitted to talk, to amend. But, fellow Senators, we have been at this on the floor for enough time. And when you consider the prior efforts, I believe the American people are wondering why we cannot get something done. Why more time? The purpose for this activity called cloture is to say we have had enough time. With cloture invoked, sooner rather than later, the bill will be voted ``yes'' or ``no'' by the Senate.

So we seek that. That is the privilege of saying to the Senate, we are going to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' soon rather than later. The way we can do that is by voting ``aye'' on the cloture vote.

I note the presence of Senator Bingaman. I have additional time. Would the Senator care to address the issue of cloture today?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the regular order.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Regular order, Madam President.

I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from New Hampshire----

Of course.

Mr. President, might I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, of course, this motion is debatable, as the Senator knows. We do not want to take a lot of time, and we do not want them to take a lot of time. But we have objection to proceeding from the other side, so we are going to be here a while. Sooner or later we will vote, even if it is at the end of 30 hours. Everybody should know that. So whoever is delaying this, all the other amendments are waiting.

I say to the Senator, you should know that at some point I am going to take 3 minutes to explain my version of the budget.

You do not have to be here, but I want you to know that so you don't think I am doing it without your knowledge. I will not take more than 3 minutes explaining what I think it says. All right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to that question, I would say that our national policy for handling high level nuclear waste is to store it at the proposed DOE site at Yucca Mountain. I don't know whether the Skull Valley site will receive the regulatory approval it needs. That is not my decision. However, in my view, our focus should remain on a solution that puts this waste directly in the hands of the Federal Government.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, might I say to all of those who pay attention to these issues that the Senator is a new member of the Energy Committee, and I wondered when we made up the committee why the Senator had chosen to be on the committee. Then I found out that Virginia has a terrific interest in a lot of these issues, and I found that the Senator was very knowledgeable and a very good participant. The Senator helped us get a good bill. I commend the Senator on his analysis today. This is a bill that should direct us in the right way, especially in the natural gas area.

Clearly, we are at our knees. People say it is the gas pump, but it is also the price of natural gas that is causing America great trouble. We have resources. We just cannot use them because we need new technology and we need to do a better job of getting them ready for the marketplace so that we do not damage the air. We are working on that, and I thank the Senator for that.

Also, I want to compliment the Senator on seeing the value of the offshore resources of the United States. I am not suggesting that I understand each State's political issues, but I do understand that there is a lot of natural gas offshore. No. 2, I do understand it can be produced with little or no harm to anybody. A lot of it can be produced if it is there.

I commend the Senator for realizing that is an American asset and he would like very much for the Congress to face up to that.

I yield to the Senator.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield momentarily.

I say to the Senators who are listening and to their staffs, we are in the process of trying to put together a short list of amendments that are absolutely necessary. We are getting close to the end--the end will be here when 30 hours have elapsed and then we could have a series of votes, but I don't think anyone wants that.

The Democratic and Republican staffers are taking these amendments and they are working together to see how many are absolutely necessary.

I ask Senators, do not wait, because we will have to go back and call you all. If you are serious about an amendment, there are people on the Democratic side and the Republican side and in the respective cloakrooms waiting to see and talk with you through your staffs or otherwise as to what you want to do about the amendments.

Clearly, there are numerous amendments and I am sure they are all not going to be offered. They were submitted in good faith, but I am sure they are not intended to be voted on before we finish.

Would Senators on both sides of the aisle--I think Senator Bingaman agrees--try to help by getting word to the cloakrooms whether they are serious, whether they want to work on their amendments so we can put our list together.

I am pleased to yield.

Might I say it this way. We are not going to agree unilaterally or even together what the list is. Senators have to agree. So, Senator, you and others who do not want that on the list, you will be there and you will say no, and so it will not be on that list. That is the best way to say it. It is not going to be on the list unless Senators want it on the list. If you do not want it on the list, when we get there, we will call, as you know, and

we will find out. We cannot tell you now because we have a lot of amendments. Let's follow the regular order. You will be there and everyone should know that.

The Senator is absolutely right. That is the way it is done. That is the way it will be done.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I know he wants to speak. I do want to explain the position I am in. I am trying very hard to get the amendment that is pending voted on. We have been waiting for a long time. Both Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici have to leave. Our scheduled time of departure is 3:30 to get home to go to a BRAC Commission meeting where six commissioners will be there. I need all the time between now and 3:30 to get it done. But if the Senator wants to speak, I will yield and see what happens.

The Senator wants to be recognized for a speech.

So long as there is no misunderstanding, the business I am talking about would include a vote.

I am appreciative. I thank the Senator so much.

Yes, indeed. As soon as this business is finished on the pending amendment, he will be recognized for whatever time he needs.

In order to save time, I wonder if I could have 2 minutes of colloquy with the Senator from Louisiana, which is part of the proposal we are trying to finish. No amendments, just a colloquy with reference to the subject matter. I know the Senator from New Jersey is here. This colloquy has to do with some amendments he is pulling down that put our compromise together so we don't have any amendments that offend you. He wants to ask me about two amendments which he will withdraw.

The Senator has my assurance. Just as I have tried to do that in the past, I will continue to do it. It cannot be included in this bill for a lot of reasons, including those the Senators from offshore States understand. We will continue to work on it and see how we can move it along in due course.

Will you pull your amendment after this colloquy?

Will you withdraw it?

Might I ask if we are ready to proceed now? Is the chairman of the Budget Committee prepared to make his closing remarks?

The appropriate word is ``recalled.''

I thank the Parliamentarian.

There is none. When you finish, we are going to vote.

Equal time, 1 minute, 2 minutes; whatever you take, I take. Then we vote.

I will use 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has the right to raise a point of order and he did. There is also a provision in the Budget Act that says if a point of order is made, the Senate may waive the point of order. So the issue before the Senate is whether we should waive the point of order. I want to make two points.

First, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has the bill on the floor, was allotted $2 billion. People think we were allotted a lot of money. We were allotted $2 billion to be spent by the committee on matters pertaining to this bill. We have a debate as to whether we can spend it on this amendment or whether we have to spend it on the bill in committee. The Senator from New Mexico maintains that we should, as a Senate, say the $2 billion was given to the committee. We are spending it on legitimate committee business, and we ought to be allowed to spend it on this amendment. We do not break the budget, we just use the money we were allotted. So it isn't a budgetary question. It is a budget issue whether we should waive based upon whether we should have used it in the committee or whether we could use that very same amount of money on

the floor of the Senate. That is the issue.

I yield back any time I have.

Mr. President, before the yeas and nays are called, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement that everybody put their fingerprints on. I will read it, after which time we will vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments that I send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to the bill, including the managers' amendment, which are enumerated; provided further that this agreement does not waive the provisions of rule XXII; further, that upon disposition of the pending Domenici amendment, no further amendments relating to the issue of OCS moratorium and natural gas and oil exploration be in order to the bill, with the exception of amendments Nos. 802 and 804, to be offered by the distinguished Senator Vitter; and that upon his statements on them, the amendments will be withdrawn. I modify that to strike the amendment we have already recalled, and that was amendment No. 802. So I strike No. 802, which has already been recalled. The rest of the proposal I leave with the Senate.

I understand that we will proceed to an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I might say to the Senate, after this vote, I don't believe either Senator from New Mexico will be here for the remainder of the votes. Senator Larry Craig will assume my role as manager of the bill. I thank everybody for their cooperation to get the bill this far.

I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks, and I share his concern regarding additional FERC merger review authority. I look forward to working with him in conference to ensure that PUHCA repeal is not accompanied by the grant of unnecessary merger review authority to FERC.

I thank Senator Salazar for his support for H.R. 6 and share his interest in developing a sound and forward-looking energy policy for our Nation. I understand his concern that the West enjoy clean energy generation. I look forward to working with him to move H.R. 6 as quickly as possible.

Innovative Technologies

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is correct.

I understand that intend to emphasize the current role of a Governor in the licensing of offshore LNG facilities pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act.

The Senator saying that a Governor currently has a clear opportunity to disapprove that a license be issued for any offshore LNG terminal?

How many times has a Governor used this authority to approve or disapprove that a license be issued?

This has been an evolving problem for some time now and I share the Senator's concern about whether the proper balance is being struck. Particularly in light of available technologies, I believe that there should be a way to produce oil and gas in the potash area without interfering with the recovery of the potash resource. My desire is to see both a vibrant potash industry and a vibrant oil and gas industry in the region, with both generating strong economic activity and employment.

I would tell the Senator that I would be pleased to give him that commitment.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we have in opposition to the amendment?

Thirty minutes. I yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee 7 minutes to start our debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I hope that Senators and those advising Senators listened carefully to the two arguments that have already been made. In particular, I commend both Senators. But let me say, if you listen carefully to the argument that Senator Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, just made, it should be clear that there is no intention in our legislation that local authorities be usurped. There is no intention that the environmental law of the land--NEPA--not be complied with. As a matter of fact, it is required.

There is nothing in this law that will take a myriad of State and local requirements and do anything other than say they must be complied with.

I have behind me a chart which summarizes that permit and certification approval that must take place before we get to the final stages. And you go through a myriad of activities. We are talking about California: Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Transportation, regional water quality, California State Historic Preservation, storm water discharge associated with construction--we can go on and on, all of these things, including a full analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.

As we wrote this bill, we were trying to write national energy policy. Our country has been accustomed to a myriad of regulatory constraints and litigation before issues that are significant to our Nation's energy come to an end. We decided that there was protection with reference to the citizens, the location, and the States in the existing law of our land, and we didn't touch it. We merely said, in the final analysis, the last step will be decided by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This is a national energy issue. For anyone who thinks this is purely a simple issue of whether a Governor, when this process is all completed, ought to be able to say with a pen ``I veto this,'' that is not the case. Any Governor who wants to participate and have a meaningful decisionmaking involvement has ample opportunity to do so, and they will. They will be heard.

In the final analysis, this country cannot wait and sit around and say: We will wait until this matter is litigated. We will wait until we see how many Governors want to say no, until we find one that will say yes. When, as a matter of fact, out of a myriad of applications--one, two, three, or four--one will have been deemed by every single environmental, every single test, every zoning law to be safe and sound. The country is dependent upon natural gas and the price of it for our future well-being. That has been stated over and over. This is an issue about whether we have a fertilizer industry. This is an issue of whether we import what we need to grow our crops or whether we produce it here. This is an issue whether America produces the chemicals we need for our lifestyle.

Why is it that? Because natural gas is the primary ingredient to all those things and more. As the Senator from Tennessee said, we had the luxury of the lowest natural gas prices. Natural gas was not in abundance when it was the lowest. Sure, we have a lot more natural gas we are producing in America. But the Senator from Tennessee indicated that we are doing everything we can to maximize our production. I want to add to his litany of what we are doing, to assure those who produce natural gas in America, we are not forgetting about them in this legislation. We are trying to give them every opportunity to produce more. We have streamlined their permitting process. We want America to produce it. But the one chance we have to bring back that competition that comes, when you have enough so that demand does not totally set the price but supply has something to do with it, is to let it be imported.

I wish I wasn't here saying that. I wish I could say America is not going to have to import natural gas. I tried my best before I started this bill. The Senator from New Mexico looked at it. I found those who say we cannot survive the next 25 years without very large increases in the natural gas that we need to use. We have to add a huge amount to what we can produce to survive.

What happens if we have a bottleneck of significant proportions on getting that natural gas into the country? The $7 plus per unit will go to $8. It will to go $9. It will go to $10. One prediction is it will go to $13. On the way, America will be going out of business. As it goes up, we are going out. We are going to lose jobs everywhere. All we are suggesting is, don't add to it. I would imagine if you looked in the world and you looked inside and said analyze how safe can the siting of one of these ports in an inland location, how safe can you make the site, you probably would say we have done everything that you could imagine to make sure that happens.

The only thing we have said is, when it is all finished--months and months, maybe even years--you can't then say a Governor can come a long and say no.

Nobody should think this is a States rights issue. This is a reasonable approach to an American problem of significance. Any Governor who is worth his salt--and probably all of them are--you can rest assured will be involved in this process. They will be involved. They just are not going to be able to say: Well, I watched it all, I have looked at it all--or, as Senator Bingaman says, perhaps they will let it all go by--and when we are finished, I will make a decision. They could say that. But I don't think that is going to happen.

First of all, we are not going to let that happen. But nobody is going to do that. They are going to get involved in all of these things that are here. In California, on the local level, you have to go through the Port of Long Beach, a harbor development permit, a building permit, the Port of Long Beach Development, city of Long Beach Engineering and Public Works. All of these things have to be done. We are not going to roll anybody over.

But in the final analysis, the States should be involved in that. If a Governor is concerned about his people, he should be involved. And, frankly, there is no doubt in my mind that if some mistakes are being made, they are going to get caught. Senator Bingaman just cited one. They aren't even close to a permit in one application. What has FERC said? They sent their people out to look at it. They said: Forget about it. It flunks the test. They didn't only fail their test, they would fail anybody's test. It would fail the test of any one of these entities. So it wouldn't be built.

But let me suggest, we have gone through making mistake after mistake by piling regulatory authority upon regulatory authority, to the extent that we have ended up saying:

OK, give up. We are just not going to do that.

The best example is nuclear power. I don't mean to have a big debate on it. But we decided that we should take care of that by litigation. We said: We will purify the shortcomings by going to court. We found out, if you to go court enough times, you kill anything because you can't get the money invested. It is a business. It must be done on the basis of financial returns, probability and risk.

I also want to say that something has been said here today about the risks involved in LNG. I don't want to get into a debate of risks involving LNG ports.

I suggest the Sandia National Laboratory report that was alluded to earlier by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. But rather than pick one section from it and reading it, it concludes that the chances anything serious will happen are minuscule. Everything you do of significance has a risk. If you don't want to risk your legs wearing out, don't get out of bed in the morning. Lay in bed your whole life. You sure won't hurt your knees. You may not be able to do anything, but you sure won't hurt your knees. Don't worry about that risk. There is a risk in everything involved in energy, but a minor risk when it comes to LNG ports. That is throughout this Sandia report.

That is an aside, just to say nobody is trying to take a risk-laden act for the location of a site and escape scrutiny. Nobody is suggesting that in this bipartisan bill that passed the committee 22 to 1. Nobody is suggesting that. Nobody is suggesting we are enhancing the risk of doing something we must do. Not at all.

I will close by saying something I believe everybody should understand. It is consensus interpretation that right now, today, without this bipartisan bill, the Federal Government has a say-so about location. I can cite various commissions, various legal opinions. But understand that when such an issue is contentious, imagine how long it could take to get a decision made about something important to a country--how many years.

I note the presence on the floor of a distinguished lawyer, the Senator from Alabama. I don't know where he is on this issue. As a States rights Senator, he probably thinks this is a States right issue. I am a States rights Senator, too, but I don't think it is. He knows how many years of litigation it would take. Would it take one? It could take four or maybe more. It would go through district court, Federal court, an appeal, they would redo it, and then somebody files an injunction and they take another appeal--while FERC says, why don't we locate a port and bring this LNG in here.

I close by saying that we are dependent upon crude oil from overseas for our very survival. I wish I could tell you we are not going to become dependent upon natural gas from overseas, but that is not the case. We are going to be. You know, those countries are going to spend so much money making sure they develop the kinds of boats needed to bring it over here that

are safe. I heard from one country that they are going to invest billions of dollars for the safety of the hulls of those ships that are going to bring it over here because they, too, know they cannot have accidents. All of this means this is profitable to somebody who produces it. We hope we don't make it such that it is more profitable because the supply is limited because we cannot act.

So this is a provision in our bill which says: Act with extreme prudence. Act only after you go through every hoop you could go through. But don't, at the end of it all, say: Governor, after all, it is a national problem studied by everybody, with environmental impact statements completed, local zoning ordinances, and the Governor could get involved and argue and send his people, and when it is finished, he can take out his pen and say I veto it. I don't think that is the way to do it.

I have not made my argument with as much legal precision as my friend Senator Bingaman, but I do believe I have stated the case--not the case for California, but the case for America. Let me say there is no better advocate than Senator Feinstein. But I must admit there is no State that makes more decisions against producing energy in their State for their people than California.

My time is expired. I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I have no objection if we add to that that we have the same amount of time added to our side.

We are adding 3 minutes to the Senator's time, so we should get 3 minutes. The Senator's doesn't count because she has it anyway.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California if she would be interested in having an additional minute. You know there is something in this question.

The Senator from California will have one minute, and we will have one minute.

It is the Senator's right.

Mr. President, I yield my minute to Senator Craig.

Mr. President, I move to table the Feinstein amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, obviously there is no time agreement, but I understand Senator Byrd is ready to go, to proceed with his amendment. I understand that is going to be accepted. We will have somebody take my place here to manage our side.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, could we try, in that arrangement, to give me 5 minutes, even if we go over a minute or 2 beyond 12:10?

The other amendment, have we seen it or know anything about it?

Madam President, first, might I say to my good friend from New York, I respect his continuous efforts in this regard. But I would say, do not misunderstand that to mean I think his amendment will do any good.

I think, first of all, the Senate should know the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not a reserve to supply the United States with oil on a day- by-day basis. It is a reserve in the event we have a crisis.

We had a crisis that started this. That is why we started the Reserve. We had a crisis because Iran, years ago, decided to cut us off. They did not cut us off by a huge amount, but just enough to send a turmoil into the market. Our prices skyrocketed, and the United States said: Well, let's find a place to put some oil that we can retrieve if we have a crisis.

Now, everybody should know a crisis does not mean the price is too high or the price is too low. It means America has suffered an untoward shock, a war that all of a sudden happened, and we started drawing down, not an ongoing, everyday event that we just play and have to work in the marketplace.

Now, how much do we have? Years ago we thought we had a very big reserve. In 1985, we said: We want to have 118 days of supply; that is, if we needed it, and needed it every day, continually, to supplement what we had domestically, we had 118 days. Because of our growing dependence and other things, we now have 59 days. The Reserve is 59 days of import protection.

I ask the Senate, is 59 days too much? I wish we could tell the American people we had 259 days. But we have 59. It will soon be filled. So anybody worrying about amendments saying, Don't put in any more; it will soon reach its capacity, I say, Good. That is what it ought to be.

Now, the Senator says: Let's start taking it out now, a million barrels a day for 30 days, with another possibility of a million barrels a day for 30 more days. To what end? Do you think those who control the price by controlling production would sit by and say, ``The United States is going to use its reserve. We don't think they should. It is kind of dumb. But they are going to put it on the market''? In a minute, they could cut production, and any impact using up this important reserve would have on the market would go away. So we would be doing a unilateral act and endangering our security because we would be minimizing the security potential of SPR, and we would not get any good out of it. There

is no assurance doing what is suggested will have any significant impact on the price of oil.

I know the Senator has said it will bring the price down, but it just does not make sense. A million barrels a day, when we use 20 million barrels--just think of that--how could it have an impact, when the OPEC cartel is a player, and they could make their adjustments?

So what I see this as is no insurance at all of anything positive and an absolute assurance of something very, very bad for America-- negative--because we will have increased our risk of not having oil when we need it from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we put in in order to take it out when we had an untoward, sort of an attack on the flow of oil by some activity outside our control.

Mr. President, while I compliment the Senator for wanting to say to Americans, We want to get the price of oil down, I want to say we worked hard in this Energy Committee. We did everything humanly possible. And if it was as easy as saying, Let's just sell the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we would have done that, I say to the occupant of the chair, who was a very active participant.

Anybody could have made a motion: Let's start selling the petroleum reserve. Nobody did that because we understand it as an activity that is self-defeating. As a matter of fact, Madam President and fellow Senators, instead of doing some good--and I say this in all deference to my friend from New York--it would probably do us some harm. Whatever you take out for this purpose probably adds to the security risk of this great Nation.

Again I repeat, we have 59 days of supply. We wish we had 118, as we started out shooting for. And now we would start diminishing that--and I cannot tell you how much; a pretty good chunk--a million barrels a day for 30 days, plus 30 more million barrels.

So having said that, I do not think we should do this.

Madam President, the time has expired, as I understand it.

Indeed.

Amendment No. 805, as Modified

I say to the Senator you have the right to modify your amendment. Go ahead.

You do not need consent.

Madam President, he has a right to modify it; is that not right?

Sure.

Madam President, I need no additional time. I move to table the Schumer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I hope I can say what I want to say in 6 minutes. If not, I will ask the Senator for a couple more minutes.

I note Senator Bingaman is in the Senate. About a week ago, 6 days ago, there was a comment that Senator Bingaman had a proposal that would move in the direction of mandatory cleanup for carbon. I was intrigued by the group that made the study and suggested a way to do it. They had testified before a committee hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We were intrigued when they talked about their idea. Senator Bingaman had taken it upon himself to put those preliminaries into the format of a bill.

It was said, and I was quite surprised at how much notoriety ensued, that I might be joining my New Mexico partner in this proposal. And that was true, I was considering. And, in fact, we did consider it.

The Senate should know, at least from this Senator's standpoint, what I found out. I found out it is very easy to say we ought to have some mandatory reductions. It is very easy to say what percent reduction there should be. As a matter of fact, the proposal we were looking at sounded rather achievable. Certainly, when compared with the Kyoto accords and when compared with the McCain-Lieberman proposals, quantitatively in many areas--effect on growth, what it will do to the use of coal, how many jobs might it cause, what will it do from the standpoint of real reduction in carbon--compare the NCEP, which was the group that put this study together that Senator Bingaman brought to the surface that I just said I was considering, when compared with McCain and Kyoto, the effect on GDP loss used in the same consistent way, and using the same way the President has been talking about it, impact on units of growth, the effect was--get this--0.02. The effect of Kyoto was 0.36. That is a huge difference because one is two-tenths of a percent and the other is 3.6 percent. That was the impact.

That attracted my attention because it seemed to me if we were going to start this process, we ought to start at something achievable. We had pretty good evidence it would not have any great big effect on the economy.

All the others are similar, emphasizing that the very notorious Kyoto agreement was, on every single one, at the very extreme other end compared to the high end, compared to the NCEP. I regret to say, other than to report the facts I know, McCain-Lieberman was not in the middle of the two but very much toward the very high end Kyoto reductions.

I had come to the conclusion we ought to look at the NCEP. This is my first time to say in the Senate why I cannot do it. I hope those who are so excited about mandatory impositions will look carefully at what I found and what--although I do not want to speak for him--I think Senator Bingaman found.

To go from the generation that we will reduce in a mandatory manner the carbon emissions, the 2.4 percent--the McCain-Lieberman is much bigger--this was going to start 8 years from now. I said maybe we should start it 10 years from now. But the next thing was how to implement it. How do you allocate the winners and the losers? Under that approach someone has to ratchet down more, somebody has to ratchet down less, somebody has to ratchet down none, and somebody has to get credit because they are so good. And some have to pay penalties because they are not so good.

I don't think you can change that mix no matter what you call the bill. I think McCain-Lieberman finds an American environment with utility companies--some of which have to reduce a lot, some of which do not have to reduce any, some of which are so good they have to get compensated for being so good--so that when we add it up, you get reduction across the Nation.

There is another way, and that is to say you cut down an even amount across the board. I guarantee if we have an even cut across the board, everybody gets cut 2.4, or maybe under McCain-Lieberman you get cut 5 or 6, nobody can live with that because then there is no benefit from having very clean utility companies. What if you had all nuclear powerplants and there was no carbon; would you still have to reduce whatever the amount is?

The reason, I said to my friend, Senator Bingaman, there is not enough time to implement a plan under the NCEP proposal is because we do not know how to draft a set of rules that will carry out our process that would be fair and that would achieve the goal. When we looked at possibilities, it was in my way of thinking impossible in 3, 4, or 5 days to write such a proposal.

Senator Bingaman might have suggested--and he still may sometime if we cannot finish it out--that we do it differently. We assign somebody the job of doing that detail. That could have been an approach. But it was not what we were talking about. We were trying to write it in.

I submit to the Senate I do not see how there can be a mandatory reduction program that does not have a very

detailed approach to who gets allocated what--who wins, who loses, who reduces, and who gets compensated because they already reduced. And all of that across an American universe of production facilities that goes from all of the nuclear powerplants. Maybe all the nuclear powerplants are old, but they are very clean. Then we have very old powerplants, still in production, but they are very dirty in terms of carbon.

How we go about doing that in statute without causing extreme, hard unfairness, inequities, is beyond me.

Having said that, the Kyoto agreement still is being bantered around as if it is viable.

I will ask unanimous consent to have printed a chart showing how big the reductions would be compared with the Lieberman-McCain and how big they would be compared to the NCEP. People ought to look at that. Kyoto is unachievable. We still keep talking about it. It is a pipe dream.

When you look at the numbers and what has to be done, we can understand why the Senate voted 95 to 0 that we would never approve a treaty under Kyoto. They blamed the President, but we said that in this Senate. Nobody here voted to implement Kyoto. I will tell you why. When you look at what you have to do compared to any other program, including the McCain program, but including the one that Senator Bingaman and I were going to do which we could not find a way to allocate the winners and losers, you will understand this is a tough job. I don't think we should do that, whether we call it Kyoto, whether we call it McCain. We should not do anything that risky and that uncertain unless there is somebody magical that has a way of putting this formula together--who wins, who loses, who gets money, who cuts, et cetera.

I ask unanimous consent the chart be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to answer the Senator from Arizona.

Well, I had 30 minutes a while ago. Did we use it all up?

Mr. President, I do not mind the Senator from Arizona saying whatever he likes on the floor. I do not mind him getting red in the face and pointing at me and talking to me like I don't know what I am talking about. But he did not listen. I did not say global warming is not a problem. He might be talking about somebody else. I did say it was. Instead of saying what he said, he should have said: I am glad Senator Domenici is finally recognizing there is a problem.

To recognize there is a problem does not mean that his way of solving it is the only solution. In fact, I am telling the Senate what he is suggesting will not work. That is all I am saying. I have the right to do that, and it does not have to be said that I am going to hurt the young generation. I am not hurting the younger generation.

The reason this amendment cannot pass is because it cannot be implemented. It is that simple. Nobody knows how to do that because nobody knows the results. You could just as well introduce a bill and say: I want to do twice as much as Senator McCain. And that would be wonderful. You could then say: I am really for the young people. I am doing twice as much.

The problem is, you do not know how to do it. You cannot do it. And everybody who has looked at it, except those

who want to set a goal, know that is not so. That is why it will lose.

I thank the Senator for yielding me 2 minutes.

Just a moment.

Senator Bingaman is trying his best to get something called up we have agreed on. He is not in a position to agree. I am trying to put it together, and he is agreeing I should do that.

Would the Senator from Tennessee and you have an amendment with reference to windmills?

I don't want to do that. I would rather wait a while.

There are 100 amendments. You want to go in the middle of the 100? Do you want to go first?

I will take one at a time, sit down and organize at the table with you.

We are willing to try hard. Our leaders told us to stay here tonight and try to agree to some amendments. We will put you right there.

Let Senator Bingaman----

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

A vote on or in relation to the amendment. He wants to table it.

That is part of the consent request.

Mr. President, first I remind everybody that 2 years ago the President of the United States gave a speech on this subject. It was a very lengthy speech, but there are two provisions, which I do not have in front of me--so forgive me, I am not quoting, I am just stating to the best of my recollection.

In the second part of the speech, which I want to mention, the President said that we should proceed to reduce carbon greenhouse gases by 18 percent through 2012 on a voluntary basis, and thereafter we should use incentives and other ways to accomplish further reduction.

First, I think that means the President of the United States is saying we should reduce carbon greenhouse gases. In fact, he, in a sense, is saying that is a good thing. In fact, he said recently we are doing it. ``We are going to meet the goal,'' said the President.

When I was trying to put together a package, I was recognizing everything the President said, and I was recognizing that voluntary is the best way. Then I was saying: What if we do not get there when the voluntary time arrives?

So anybody who suggests there is nobody around who thinks this is a problem, why is the President saying we ought to reduce them if there is no problem? Are we just doing it because it is the flavor of the times? I don't think so. I think the President is saying we ought to get on with doing it. He thinks there is a way to do it, and he thinks voluntary is doing it, and I do not argue with him.

As a matter of fact, I think anybody who tries to start capping in any way one chooses to call capping early is mistaken because the United States of America is doing many things with many dollars on many fronts to reduce greenhouse gases.

The question is, Do we do anything if we are unsuccessful in achieving some goal? As I read what I have agreed to help Senator Bingaman with, it says there is a problem. It says we ought to do something to reduce the problem, and it is says precisely that ``it is the sense of the Senate that Congress''--it does not even say when-- ``that Congress,'' not next year, ``that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits.'' Then it says, ``and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases,'' that do what? `` . . . that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions,'' and then it says--these are the goals, the concerns--that it will not significantly harm the economy.

One could say you should not put ``significantly'' in there because is some OK? What does ``significant'' mean? I say it means what we want it to mean. It just says something. Should we put in ``no more than one-half of 1 percent''? Then we would be prejudging what can be done. ``Significantly'' means to me something with which we can live and still have a very viable American growing economy but make some achievements in terms of diminution of carbon.

Then it says this will also encourage a comparable action by other nations that are trading partners of the United States. That is what we are trying to do.

Frankly, I know some will read more into this than is here, and I understand. I am not critical of anybody. Everybody has views on this issue.

I also hope those who understand what we voted on a little while ago--I spoke in opposition to it--I think I understand it as well as anybody. It received 38 votes. I did not vote for it.

Likewise, I am on this amendment because it is making a statement with reference to this issue. I, frankly, believe the time has come for some of us to make a statement regarding this issue, and I choose this one. Some others would say we want to be purely voluntary, and they could put in a sense of the Senate that we will remove as much carbon as we can, as soon as we can using all voluntary means, and that is a sense of a Senate. I would not be against that. I would say that is probably something good.

That is all I wanted to say. I thank the Senator for yielding me whatever time I have used. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

I move to reconsider the vote.

On behalf of the leader, I wish to read a unanimous consent request regarding the lineup that we will follow henceforth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the following amendments: Senator Alexander's amendment, which is at the desk and relates to wind, 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form; second, Senator Kerry's amendment, sense of the Senate on climate change, 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the Alexander or Kerry amendments prior to the votes in relation to those amendments and that votes in relation to those amendments occur in a stacked fashion following the debate on both amendments.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following those votes, Senator Warner be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to OCS, with his part of the agreement subject to the approval of both leaders; further, there be 15 minutes for Senator Lautenberg and 15 minutes for Senator Domenici or his designee during the aforementioned debate.

There is another Senator who wants to be recognized.

I thank the Chair and Senator Warner and all others who participated.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I have read through the 6-page document that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has submitted as his proposal before the Senate.

I was wondering, as I read through--if you skip the first few paragraphs, you begin seeing the word ``Convention'' with a capital letter. I went back to see what that is. That is the Kyoto Convention.

Senator, would you like to address the Chair, please? Would you like to ask a question?

I was not. I was looking here. I said: What is he asking us to do? I finally got down to where the Senator's amendment says: It is the sense of the Senate that we shall do these things, work first by participating in intergovernmental negotiations under the convention with the objective of securing United States participation, et cetera, et cetera.

I said: What is the convention? It is the U.N. Framework Convention. It says here. It produced Kyoto. That is what it says here. So I just want to remind the Senate, the Senator is suggesting that we ought to go back and join that convention and do something with the world so we can achieve something positive in global warming, the control of global warming gases.

Frankly, everybody here should know, if they did not, the Senator from New Mexico voted for the Bingaman amendment, which many on my side did not, because I believe we have a problem. I said that. I thought that at sometime the Congress should address it. But I surely do not support this resolution which, in a sense, says now the Senate ought to be talking about going back into negotiations with the world under an architecture that has failed us. As a matter of fact, it yielded a very big, powerful what I would call pompous ceremonial proposal called Kyoto, which nobody is going to follow that has any industrial capacity.

Now, maybe I should not say ``nobody,'' but very few nations. Most are trying to say: We would like to do it.

This Senate has said, 99 to 0, do not send us the treaty, Mr. President, because we are not going to do it. So I think the Senator-- this is a good idea. It is a very excellent speech. His remarks are very admirable. But I do not believe we should today ask, through a sense of the Senate, that we go back to a convention architecture and enter into international agreements under its architecture, which yielded Kyoto, which I do not believe was very successful.

I do not think I want to debate it particularly. I have just seen charts as to what it would require of the United States, and we could never do it. How much the other proposals do that is far less, and we can hardly do those. But that is another case. Is Kyoto achievable? No. Did that convention architecture achieve anything significant? I do not think so. We had a great debate, talked a lot about some good things. Maybe some great scientists attended. But I do not think we really want to say it is the sense of the Senate that we should go back to that format. I hope we do not. As far as I am concerned, I will not vote for it.

I compliment the Senator again for the ideas expressed and the goals. But I do not think we should do this as a sense of the Senate.

I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I have.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

I say to the Senator, would you yield back your time if I yield back mine?

Mr. President, I will reserve 53 seconds.

Mr. President, let me say to my fellow Senators, you have already as an institution, whether you voted for it or not, the Bingaman sense of the Senate. It said the Senate recognizes greenhouse gases are a problem. There is a scientific consensus that it is a problem, that we ought to do something about it through incentives and/ or mandatory caps. So we are on record on that. This is not just an amendment saying we should have a bipartisan congressional group to observe international participation in some agreements. It is much broader than that. It talks about joining in a convention architecture with the world. I don't know what else it could be other than the architecture that was established under Kyoto because that is what it refers to. I don't think we need to do that.

I yield back time I might have. I guess we want the yeas and nays.

As I understand it--did the Senator use all his time?

I ask the Senator from New Jersey, would he be disposed to yielding back his time if this Senator would yield all of my time now?

I yield back whatever time we have on our side. I ask the question so I understand carefully. The Senator did not ask for any consent that we take any action. He just delivered a speech. I didn't miss anything by way of a request, did I?

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 844

I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I understand the Senators from Wisconsin and from Kansas have concerns about the potential for regulated utilities to cross-subsidize the business ventures of some of their affiliate companies.

Let me assure the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas that I appreciate their concerns, and I agree that utility customers should not be forced to unfairly bear the costs of business ventures by unregulated companies affiliated with their local utility. Neither should competition be undermined by unfair competition caused

by shifting costs from an unregulated utility-owned business to the public utility. We can agree to disagree on whether FERC needs new authority or simply needs to exercise its existing authority. I anticipate that FERC will use its existing and new authority to address the problems described by small businesses and financial groups, but I agree that if there are problem areas, we should take a look at them.

I commit to the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas that I will work with them through conference to ensure that the final version of this bill does not undermine consumer protections or the financial integrity of utilities, or harm America's small businesses by undermining competition. I will also work with them to hold a hearing in the committee about transactions by holding companies and affiliate businesses of public utility companies. Finally, I suggest a General Accounting Office report on affiliate transactions by holding companies and affiliate businesses of public utility companies, as such a report could be a useful resource for us in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall Islands.

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, D.C. 20510-6150.

This time agreement, if I were to ask to yield additional time beyond that which we have for Senators, what would I be moving up against in terms of putting the Senate in some kind of a problem?

How many more Senators are supposed to speak on this issue?

Each of them have how much time?

I am sorry, Senator.

I ask unanimous consent it be in order that Senator Nelson yield 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to address the Senator for 30 seconds without being charged.

Mr. President, my fellow Senators, we have heard the Chair announce we will have a vote that is set. The Senators have time to speak, so they should get down here and speak. We have Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, the distinguished majority leader--although he can take time off his own time.

For any who have remaining time agreed to, it would serve their purpose if they would use their time because the time will run against them. I am not going to yield. I have only 7\1/2\ or 8 minutes in opposition. I cannot yield.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I assume the time is going to be charged proportionately against all the remaining speakers?

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Do we need a quorum call for that to occur?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I appreciate the support of Senator Bingaman.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee included the language which is going to be stricken if the amendment passes. I urge the Senate not to strike the language. All Americans today are looking at the gas pump. They are seeing the price. The average price in the United States is $2.13. That means something. They go home and they wonder about it. They ask questions: What are we going to do about it?

Americans should know that not at the gas pump but out there across the land there is another phenomenon occurring. That is the terrific increase in the price of natural gas, this marvelous product that years ago we didn't think we had very much of, and then we started finding it. All of a sudden we

thought we had an amount which we would never run out of. So we started putting it in the big powerplants because it is clean. We pumped it in by the trillions of cubic feet to produce electricity.

Now, all of a sudden the price is going up because demand has gone up dramatically. It has increased 300 percent in a short period of time. It is predicted, if something doesn't happen, the price could go as high as $13; today it is only $7. It was at one time down in the neighborhood of $1.50 or $2. That means if it continues to go up, we will have no fertilizer business in America. We will have no chemical business in America. Natural gas, which we use in our powerplants, will begin to run out. We are using it for all kinds of purposes. Then we will understand. We don't understand it right now.

All we are saying is, America, out there in the ocean, 200 miles, you can put these drilling platforms--I flew out and landed on one--you can put them out there. People have seen them on television. They are absolutely tremendous technological feats. There is no pollution. Nothing happens except 10 or 12 wells are drilled, this valuable resource that we own comes up, and we use it.

We thought it was very important for our citizens to know how much natural gas or crude oil exists out there. Nothing is going to happen to the States. Nothing is being changed versus the States. The moratoria exist. If we brought a moratoria amendment up here and said, lift the moratorium on Florida, it would lose. The bill would die. A filibuster would occur.

We are not asking for that. As a matter of fact, the bill says you can't even drill to determine the assets that America owns. It will be done by new, modern technology, seismic and otherwise, that in a few years will say to America, through Congress, to the President--and it will be a truthful, full disclosure, a transparency--America, if you have a problem, you have some alternatives. You can import natural gas in big ships that will bring it over here in a liquefied manner. We will still be paying foreign countries for it. We don't know if the price will come down. We don't know if they will have a cartel. They don't now. But if I were them, they are not subject to any national laws of ours, they could form a cartel. Natural gas could keep going up. We would keep importing it.

I can tell the American people, if we have this asset out there and some State thinks that maybe we ought to drill, or the United States of America believes we are throttled, we ought to know what is there. That is all. Some decision can be made in the future.

I say to my fellow Senators, please understand, this is not a proposal to change any moratoria. This is not a proposal to harm the State of Florida. We compliment the distinguished Senators, Mr. Martinez and Mr. Nelson, who have argued eloquently on behalf of their State. Senator Dole has been here. The Senator from New Jersey has been here. We recognize all of them.

Did Senator Bingaman have any time remaining?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

What we are asking is nothing more, nothing less than on behalf of the American people, let the experts go out and find out how much is there. In a rather superficial way, without having ever done the real seismic work, we have an idea of what is there, across the circle around America that has been described so eloquently by Senator Landrieu. We know somewhat what is there. But we don't know with any kind of assurance. We need that. That is what the amendment is about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is not a vote in order at this time?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have a unanimous consent request which has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that there now be 60 minutes of debate in relation to the pending amendment with the following Senators recognized: Senator Voinovich, 15 minutes; Senator Reid or his designee, 15 minutes; Senator Inhofe, 15 minutes; Senator Hagel, 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Hagel amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to that vote.

Mr. President, I understand that this is satisfactory with Senator Hagel.

Mr. President, I know we just set this in motion, but I ask Senator Hagel if I could use 2 minutes of his time now.

Mr. President, before we are finished with the votes on global warming--and I will have a little to say; I will get time from somebody--I will present to the Senate a detailed summary of the bill that is pending before the Senate in terms of what it does to move the United States of America toward a reduction in the so-called greenhouse gases led by carbon.

This bill we are going to vote out of here hopefully tomorrow or the next day that we worked so hard on in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with Senator Bingaman, my ranking member, and Senators such as Lamar Alexander who have worked very hard, it does take some giant steps toward the reduction of carbon in the American economy. It does so in ways that if our business communities want to spend money and use innovative technology, the opportunities are there.

If our scientists want to make breakthroughs to clean up, it is there. If people want to move with nuclear power, which is the cleanest--right now, as my friend from Tennessee has reminded me, 70 percent of the carbon-free emissions in America come from the nuclear powerplants. That is rather astounding. We run around thinking we have done so much cleanup, but these very old--old in that we have not built one in 23 years--these nuclear powerplants are the ones that are cleaning up right now.

All I am saying is, this bill says if we are right, we are going to build some nuclear powerplants during the era of trying to reduce carbon. That is going to be part of our world, both economic and cleanup world, as provided in this bill.

We will summarize that. There is no attempt to delude the efficacy of the other bills, be it Hagel or McCain, but merely to say we recognized this in our committee, but we just did not think we ought to do global warming per se. That is where we are.

The Senate is confronted with the unanimous consent agreement which we have just laid before it.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President; is there a quorum call?

Further parliamentary inquiry; what is the regular order at this point?

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there any other time on behalf of any other Senators on either side?

Might I ask, when those are finished, what is the regular order after that?

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

I ask the Senator, would you like to get the yeas and nays on your amendment?

We can get the yeas and nays now?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I have a very detailed analysis I would like put in the Record which relates to provisions within the Bingaman- Domenici bill that is before the Senate which would promote responsible progress on climate change.

What I tried to do here was to say to the Senate: Please understand that your Energy and Natural Resources Committee, from the inception, was worried about climate change and the gases that have an impact on climate change according to scientists in the United States. Now, there are some who contest that, but let me just follow through.

The bill before us might even have been called the Clean Energy Act because so much of it is directed at producing, in the future, for these United States, energy that will have little or no effect in terms of emitting carbon that is the principal problem with global warming. Having said that, the statement goes into detail. Indeed, it is a detailed statement.

So I would, just for summary, say there is an entire title which we chose to call Incentives For Innovative Technology, title XIV of the bill. This is a very different section than you find in most technology-promoting or science-promoting bills because it says this entire provision is aimed at new technologies that will produce energy sources that have no global warming emissions.

Then it says, in order to do that, the Secretary of Energy--we put all this in the Energy Department so there is no mixup as to who is doing what--it allows so-called guaranteed loans to be issued for the purpose of building clean energy-producing plants, mechanisms, or activities. It says the Secretary shall analyze them. If they are feasible, he can use whatever peer review he would like.

Then they ask of the Congressional Budget Office: How much should this loan require by way of insurance, insurance for the risk? If they say 10 percent, then the company asking for the money to build the new technology, which will produce clean energy, has to put up 10 percent of the cost in cash. And then we lend them the money, on an 80-20 basis, and they proceed, under the direction of the Secretary, to produce this new facility.

We believe this is going to say to our Federal Government for the first time: Take a look out there and see what we can do in the next decade to move new technology along that will take the carbon out of coal, perhaps even move with the very first generation of pilot projects for the sequestration of coal and of carbon--meaning get rid of it, putting it in the ground or whatever. At the same time, who knows, that technology may take the mercury and other pollutants out of it.

But we are going to put in place an opportunity for the Secretary to do this so long as he thinks they are moving in the right direction. And the right direction is the same direction as the technology-laden proposal by Senator Hagel.

We also have in this bill expanded research and development for bioenergy which concentrates on solar. We expanded R&D for nuclear power. Now, for anybody interested in that, that is completely different than the incentives to build nuclear powerplants soon. This is research and development in what we call Generation IV. It is the next, next generation of nuclear powerplants. And we start moving on that. Why? Because there is a lot of money and a lot of hope that we will be moving toward a hydrogen economy. I am not predicting that will be the case but many are.

In any event, it is sufficiently important. The President moved in that direction. This bill and the appropriators have spent money in that way. And what we are saying in this bill is that we should spend money for the next-two-generations-out nuclear powerplants because that kind of powerplant may be the source of heat that will produce hydrogen.

At this point hydrogen must be produced. But the other day Senator Bingaman and I were on a television show and somebody asked: How are we going to produce hydrogen? My friend from New Mexico said right now we could produce it from natural gas. I had forgotten about that. That is true. But natural gas is in short supply, and it takes a lot of it to produce hydrogen. So we need another source. That R&D for a new generation of powerplants is aiming in the same direction as everything I have spoken of. It is seeking a way to get away from carbon-laden energy and move with more hydrogen potential.

This bill has an 8 billion gallon renewable fuel standard, which means ethanol. Many people around here and some in the country have said ethanol isn't any good. We should not be doing it. Maybe when the price of crude oil was $8 or $7--I can remember when Senator Henry Bellmon from Oklahoma was here, it was $6. He used to say the arithmetic doesn't work. At $6 it is not worth producing ethanol. But at the price now, it is worth it. I don't know if eight is the right number, but we did that here because we said if we can produce ethanol, we will have had a dramatic effect on the prospect of contributing more carbon, which is what Senator Hagel is trying to do in his technology- pushing amendment, is to produce less carbon, thus less pressure on what many believe is the human contributor to global warming. There is another one that is in this bill. Senator Hagel doesn't have to have ethanol in his bill because ethanol is in this bill.

We also require alternative fuel use, dual fuel in all Federal vehicles. We have reforms for alternative fuel programs. We have some incentives for hybrid cars. On the nuclear side, we all think that new nuclear powerplants is one of the best ways to address the issue of carbon in the atmosphere and global warming. I think my friend from Nebraska would agree. Right now in America 70 percent of the carbon- clean smokestack gases, 70 percent that is totally free of carbon comes from nuclear powerplants. So the underlying bill says: Let's build some nuclear powerplants. And it does everything possible, extending Price Anderson. So I would assume that if you had a tax-promoting bill that didn't have this underlying bill that we produced in our committee, say it was a standalone Hagel bill, he might even put Price Anderson in there because in a sense it would surely be moving the technology ahead by providing some of the security necessary for nuclear power.

Beyond that, we have changes in the geothermal leasing to get more geothermal. Everywhere we turn in the bill we have produced we have moved in the direction of trying to produce carbon-free energy for the future.

As I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and his sponsors want to move in that direction with loan guarantees and other kinds of consortia arrangements to move ahead with technology. They have an international feature to their bill. Obviously, we don't have an international feature to our bill, but Senator Hagel has chosen to put some provisions in that would move us in the right direction if they can become law. It says that the world has a problem, not just America, and that the international community, with America as part of it, ought to do some things to move ahead with global warming contributors that will come from outside the United States, which is a very good idea.

I ask that my full analysis of the bill before us, before the Hagel amendment, which will be amplified if the Hagel

amendment is agreed to--this statement shows everything we are doing in this bill to contribute to cleaner energy sources for the future in terms of our electricity production which will greatly minimize carbon production--I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, will find his way to the Senate Chamber because he asked us to get him some time, and we are doing that right now in this request.

The suggestion I have for the Senate is as follows: I understand Senator Salazar from Colorado would like to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business about a deceased general in his State. Then Senator McCain will offer a climate change amendment along with his cosponsor, Senator Lieberman. That will be debated tonight, and we will set some additional

debate time for tomorrow if required by the distinguished Senators or anybody in opposition.

We may, however, have an additional vote tonight. I want everybody to know this. We might have a vote tonight. It will not be on the McCain amendment, but we will set that amendment aside, without objection from the Senator from Arizona, and take up this other amendment.

We have a number of amendments that are pending, besides the one I just indicated. One of those is a DeWine-Kohl amendment. We are going to try to work that in here and that would be without a rollcall vote. The Voinovich amendment is the one on which we will be voting.

We will proceed, as I have indicated, and recognize the Senator from Colorado, if he is here. If he is not here, we are going right to Senator McCain. If he comes, maybe the Senator from Arizona can accommodate Senator Salazar. If not, we will let Senator McCain proceed.

We are not waiting. Senator McCain is yielding time.

Parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator from New Mexico have the floor?

I believe that I could now argue against the pending amendment, but I choose at this point, if we could, because I made some arrangements that I don't think are inconsistent with the minority leader--not

agreements but arrangements--if we could let Senator Inhofe, who is now in opposition to the amendment, proceed, he would like to speak for 10 minutes.

And then could we go to Senator Inhofe for 10 minutes?

OK. This is an interesting moment. I don't want to object.

Mr. President, I have already told the minority what I was going to do if I can get an understanding. Senators DeWine and Kohl want to offer an amendment. I ask them if they could complete their amendment--allowing the Senator from New Mexico 1 minute--in 6 minutes between the two.

I am not trying to tell you; I am asking if you can do that.

That will be voice voted, however it turns out. Then we are going to proceed, without objection, to Senator Voinovich, who has an amendment which has been circulated for a while. He desires to debate that amendment and have a rollcall vote, correct?

If anybody wants to speak in opposition, I will ask that they have 1 minute and that you have 6 minutes on your side. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for that.

I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays now for the Voinovich amendment when it is appropriately before the Senate.

We can proceed with the rest of the consent agreement, and then we are back on the Senator's amendment. If I failed to ask that the McCain-Lieberman be temporarily set aside while this is occurring, I so request.

I thank the Senator. I am sorry I did not make it clear enough. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, obviously I am letting this amendment proceed, but, frankly, I do not think the amendment should be on this bill. I do not think it could ever become law. The United States has never done this. These are sovereign nations, and for us to decide here on the Senate floor that we are going to establish some new forum for jurisdiction and litigation against the OPEC cartel is nothing short of incredible.

Nonetheless, I do not question the goodwill and the authenticity of the two Senators in their approach. They do not insist on a rollcall vote, and I will not insist on one. We will, therefore, have a voice vote. I hope those who are listening to this and see what we do understand that the Senate does things different ways at different times.

After the amendment is adopted by voice vote, I will tell the Senate and those interested what is going to happen to the amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest that we vote.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are going to proceed to the Voinovich amendment. I thank Senator DeWine for accommodating us tonight and for his good intention. I wish we could do something and accomplish what he wanted to do today. I want everybody to know because we had a voice vote and accepted this amendment, we will go to conference with the House. It should be clearly understood that the House does not have anything like this. I want everybody to know that this amendment is going to have to be bundled up with this bill. Those are the rules. But it might get lost between the floor and the time we get over to the Senate, and we may not be able to find it when we get over there, just so everybody understands what the fate of this amendment is. But it has been adopted.

I yield the floor.

I did not hear. Pardon me. What is the question?

Are we finished? Is the Senator finished with his time?

I understand that there is no further time. I am supposed to sit down. We are not supposed to ask for a motion, say we move to proceed, we just sit down, and then the Chair does it.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are not going to have any additional votes tonight. That is the first announcement I would like to make. But I also would like to suggest that, while the principal amendment, in terms of time tomorrow, is the McCain-Lieberman amendment on global climate change, there are now a number of amendments that are percolating up on the Democratic side predominantly. We are unable yet to come up with a list, but we are trying.

It seems the distinguished Senator from New York, standing right in front of me, might have one we could go with rather quickly in the morning and perhaps the Senator from California, but I have to consult both with Senator Bingaman, obviously, and others.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill tomorrow morning, Senator Feinstein be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to LNG; provided further that there be 60 minutes equally divided for debate, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment.

I further ask that following the debate on the Feinstein amendment, Senator Byrd be recognized in order to offer an amendment related to rural gas prices; provided further, that when the Senate resumes debate on the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment, there be 3 additional hours for debate, with Senator McCain or his designee in control of 90 minutes, Senator Domenici in control of 30 minutes, and Senator Inhofe in control of the remaining 60 minutes; further, that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment and there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I understand this has been cleared.

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

Mr. President, we had another good day debating the amendments on this Energy bill, and we disposed of a number of them. We are going to return tomorrow with a lineup in the morning, and we are going to talk about that in a minute. We are going to have amendments relating to the LNG, liquefied natural gas, the world gas prices, to SUVs and the continuation of the climate change debate. Having said that, I remind everyone this is our second week of considering this bill. I am very pleased and thankful for the cooperation we have had on both sides of the aisle. Our leader has said on a number of occasions that we need to finish this bill this week. Therefore, on behalf of the majority leader, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the underlying bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum be waived.

For the information of all Senators, this vote will occur on Thursday. In the meantime, I expect another full day to tomorrow with votes throughout the day. The cloture vote Thursday will enable us to bring this debate to a close and have a final vote on passage of the Energy bill this week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to receive a classified briefing regarding improvised explosive devices (IEDS).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Consideration of Regulatory Relief Proposals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Russia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 9:15 a.m., for a hearing titled, ``Juvenile Diabetes: Examining the Personal Toll on Families, Financial Costs to the Federal Health Care System, and Research Progress Toward a Cure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to examine the issue of voter verification in the Federal elections process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, on Coast Guard's Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan at 10 a.m., in SR-253.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1282 that was introduced earlier today.

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

I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time of the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill, provided that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill, Senator Feinstein be recognized to offer an amendment as provided under the previous order.

Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the Energy bill. Under the previous order, as we have just indicated, Senator Feinstein will offer a liquefied natural gas amendment in the morning, under 1-hour time agreement. Following that debate, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, will offer an amendment regarding rural gas prices. It is my hope that we will be able to stack the votes in relation to the Feinstein amendment with additional votes tomorrow morning. Senators should expect at least 1 vote prior to lunch.

For the remainder of the day, we will continue working through the amendments on the bill.

We reached an agreement tonight with respect to the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment. We expect to dispose of the amendment tomorrow afternoon. We will consider additional amendments tomorrow, and Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and into the evening.

Finally, I remind Senators we just filed cloture on the bill. That cloture vote will occur on Thursday, as we try to complete the bill this week.

As a reminder, under the provisions of rule XXII, the first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 p.m. tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.