Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing on developing a reliable supply of oil from domestic oil shale and oil sands resources has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 10 a.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss opportunities to advance technology that will facilitate environmentally friendly development of oil shale and oil sands resources. The hearing will address legislative and administrative actions necessary to provide incentives for industry investment, as well as explore concerns and experiences of other governments and organizations and the interests of industry.

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

For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at (202) 224-7545 or Amy Millet at (202) 224-8276.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I begin by complimenting my friend from New Hampshire and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on a job well done. As the new Chairman, he has skillfully navigated a difficult course to produce the budget resolution before us today. Congratulations.

I also want to tell him that even though this is his first year as the Budget Committee chairman, he has handled the job like a seasoned veteran.

I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate debates the FY 2006 Senate Budget Resolution.

It is my understanding the resolution before us assumes the revenue impact of enacting a mental health parity law at a cost of $1.5 billion over 5 years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the case because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically referenced in S. Con. Res. 18.

Rather, the overall revenue number is such that it assumes Congress will pass mental health parity legislation.

I thank the distinguished Chairman for his consideration and explanation of this important matter.

energy savings performance contracts

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

The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of David Garman to be Under Secretary of Energy.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. President, I don't need any time to discuss the matter. I need a unanimous consent request. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me to do that.

This has to do with a time allotment on our side for the debate. We have 45 minutes on our side on debate with reference to the exploration in Alaska.

I ask unanimous consent that 45 minutes be distributed as follows to Senators on our side to speak on the Cantwell amendment up to 5 minutes each: Senator Allen, Senator Talent, Senator Thune, Senator Murkowski, Senator Inouye, who would have up to 10 minutes--he is the only exception--and Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici. That would be 45 minutes. Some might use less and give it to other Senators.

I wanted the Republican Senators to know they are all in line at some point during the debate, with 45 minutes of our time for them.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, how much time is on the other side?

Thank you, Mr. President.

(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, let me say to Senator Stevens that it has been a pleasure working with him on this issue.

Some people have asked: Why don't we listen to the people of Alaska? It is their livelihood. They live there. I had the pleasure of going up there and talking with them. I can tell the Senate without any doubt that the overwhelming majority--maybe 70 to 75 percent--of Alaskans wants this to be developed. I think that means, at a minimum, they have seen some development, they have seen the benefits of it, and they have assured themselves that it can be done in such a way that it will not harm the environment which they so much cherish and in which they live. They don't want it to be destroyed.

Now, I want to talk about some comparables. Many ask--not that there is a direct relationship--why don't we do more in renewables? I want to talk about what 1 million barrels of oil a day means compared to a renewable source of energy such as wind production. For those that say we ought to do more in renewables like wind, to make sure we do things in an environmentally sound way, here is the evidence. One million barrels of oil a day is the equivalent to 24,000 megawatts of powerplant production per day. That equals 24 powerplants, which in turn equals 92,500 windmills. The anticipated production from ANWR would be the equivalent of 5,781 square miles of windmills, the combined size of the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. And 70 percent of the surface of the State of Massachusetts would be covered with windmills in order to equal 1 million barrels a day in electric generating capacity.

I want to talk about a couple of things. First, how important this production is and that we proceed with it. The United States of America is in a state of crisis. Some people wonder whether this is serious. Indeed, it is. We do not know what to do and how to get out of our need for oil and oil products for American's daily lives, for our economic well-being, and for our transportation needs. I don't have an answer to that. We will all work hard to try to change that, but it will take many decades to change.

Some say we ought to conserve more and they say we should conserve instead of producing this oil. I can only say we need to do everything. We are in such a crisis we have to conserve and we have to produce where we can, because right now the United States of America is absolutely vulnerable to the fact that we import oil from a dangerous and fragile world.

What happens if oil is denied America by unfriendly foreign countries? Would you believe that this big superpower called America will be brought to her knees? We talk about our future security. We will not be a world power if somebody decides to deny us oil. I regret to say we are there now--not 10 years from now, today. And it will only get worse.

Alaska, of course, is a State in our great Union. This is not a foreign country. It is part of the United States. And we have by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the United States in this 1.5 million acres in the State of Alaska. You can call it what you want, but it says in the law that this 1002 area is open for exploration if Congress wants to so vote. That is what we are talking about here. We are not here to destroy anything. We are here to vote on the proposition that Congress originally set this 1.5 million acres aside for--to go and look for oil. The laws says Congress will make the decision. We are making the decision here today. Do we want to do that or not?

Let's talk about the United States and what a predicament we are in. The American reserves of oil, the entire reserves in all of our States, is 21.9 billion barrels. That is terrible. We are the 11th in the world for oil reserves. According to the estimate arrived at by the United States Geological Survey, the area at issue contains 10 billion barrels of oil. The USGS did a similar estimate for Prudhoe Bay but they underestimated it by 30 percent. But let's just use their numbers, which I call low: 10 billion barrels. With the oil estimated from ANWR, America's total reserves would be over 30 billion barrels of oil. That means this particular part of America contains one-third of the total reserves of oil of the United States of America.

Imagine saying we don't need it. Opponents want us to do something else instead.

Senator Everett Dirksen used to say about dollars, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon it adds up. I can say to Senators and those listening, as far as America's energy future, a million barrels here and a million barrels there really adds up. And pretty soon it is terribly important to America's future. That is the first point.

No one knows how to get off this dependence. We have to find ways to minimize the damage while we conserve, change our ways and go to hydrogen cars, but none of that will happen for a long time.

In the meantime, we send all our money overseas, to foreign countries. The distinguished junior Senator from Alaska was talking about how many dollars a day we send out. On a yearly basis this 1 million barrels adds $18.6 billion to the merchandise trade deficit; that is, the trade deficit between us and the world. What we pay for foreign oil is almost 26 percent of the trade deficit. But it is not important, say some, that we increase our reserves by 10 billion barrels, which is adding one-third to our reserves for the future.

My second point has to do with the fact that some say this is not the right way to do it, that we should not be using a budget resolution. I said last night it happens to be that this Senator knows a little bit about budget resolutions. I know a little bit about reconciliation.

I ask for 1 minute off the resolution.

And I want to make sure our Senator, the senior Senator, speaks in wrap-up.

I close by saying there is no doubt in my mind that America must do something. This is an opportunity to do something very significant. We are not going to damage anything.

This is a picture of a production well. All of that is done off of ice roads. When we are finished, we take it away and you see the little speck is what remains, the end product of an exploratory well. You can go there and prove up the reserves and leave that speck in a 1.5- million-acre piece of America.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It will just take 1 second.

Madam President, do we understand the distinguished Senator is speaking on the Democrats' time on ANWR?

The Senator is speaking on the budget, but, I say to the Senator, you are using time that is allotted for ANWR. Does the Senator understand that?

I thank the Senator.

How much time does the other side have, and how much time do we have?

And now the time goes to the Democratic side.

I yield the floor.

We object to the amendment. It is not in order. There is a consent decree.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I objected, but I understand this is a motion to strike the ANWR provisions, and we have no objection. That is business.

Is that correct, Senator?

How much time do we have?

Mr. President, I had two Senators who wanted to speak. I have not spoken yet. Would the Senator from Tennessee like to speak for, say, 4 minutes?

I will try to leave some time for the two of you. Tomorrow morning, we have a total of 45 minutes before the vote, starting somewhere around 9:45. If you don't get your time tonight, maybe you can call and see how much time you can have then.

Mr. President, let me suggest that the distinguished Senator who just spoke said she was outraged because the price of gasoline was so high in her State. I might say to the distinguished Senator, if she is outraged today, I don't know what she is going to be 3

years from now because if we don't start doing something, as President Reagan once said, ``you ain't seen nothing yet.'' That is what I am going to tell the Senate and people of this country about gasoline prices.

Let me also suggest that for those who think we are going to solve this problem with an investigation to see whether there is price fixing or something like that, let me suggest that is not going to happen. That has been looked at before. The truth is, this great United States of America has made a gigantic blunder, and we don't know how to get out of it. Certainly, one way to get into it deeper is to take a piece of America, like this 1.5 million acres which is supposed to be explored for oil and gas--and keep that kind of property closed and not produce crude oil.

Let me assure everybody here that there is no one who knows how to get off of crude oil very quickly. In fact, I don't think anybody knows how America will ever be off of oil as a means of transportation and for many other things. I hope we get an energy bill that provides conservation. I hope Americans start driving small cars. I hope we have hybrids. But for now, I say to my good friend from Colorado, every single suggestion that anyone has about how we can reduce our dependency ought to be adopted.

If you think we ought to conserve, conserve. If you think we ought to produce more crude oil, produce it. None of these potential solutions are going to be enough because we are now struggling over the fact that we are importing so much crude oil. I heard a Senator say today that we might consider ANWR if we were collapsing.

Well, we won't know when we are collapsing, but we are pretty close. Right now, we are importing about 58 percent of the crude oil from a world that is in trouble, where some countries are fragile, and war might occur in others, and here we go along our merry way importing more and more oil. Petroleum imports are expected to reach 69 percent in the year 2025. Then we get a chance to produce 1 million barrels a day, and we are immediately confronted with those who say that is not very much. Why do we want to produce a million barrels of oil? Well, you know, this great United States is consuming 20.5 million barrels of oil a day and is currently only 11th on the scale of the most reserves on down the line. We are 11th from the top in the amount of oil reserves we have in our country. That is almost insignificant compared to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia ranks first in proven world oil reserves with 260 billion barrels. However, our reserves are only about 21.9 billion barrels.

I say to my good friend from Tennessee, the 1002 area we are discussing is estimated to have about 10 billion barrels of oil--that is very probable. Just do the arithmetic. Our country's entire oil reserves amount to 21.9 billion barrels. This area in ANWR will produce 10 billion barrels. Insignificant they say? Add the two together and we could have 31 billion barrels in reserves. Again, this property will comprise 10 billion barrels of it. That is one-third of the reserves of America that will be up there in Alaska, and we are being told it is insignificant. That is like saying all the oil we have in America is insignificant. Why don't we close Texas down? That must be insignificant. It must be insignificant because we buy it from the world. As long as the world can supply it, I guess we are going to have to keep on arguing about ANWR. If there are not any more ANWRs around, I don't know what we are going to look to.

I can tell you this. ANWR, with the potential for 1 million barrels of oil a day, will be the most significant onshore production capacity of any potential new onshore area in the United States--a brand new one. ANWR is by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the United States. You might say, since I learned that ANWR is so little, maybe America doesn't have much oil, and we should just not worry about having any.

I do not think so. I think we better do everything we can and must produce as much as we can.

There are so many facts indicating that we are pursuing a path of economic arrogance--we are absolutely refusing to face reality. Every time we discuss this issue someone will come and talk about another way to use less oil, but not to produce more here in America.

I repeat, if you implemented every potential solution that everybody is suggesting, our tremendous Nation would be in terrible jeopardy for the next 25 to 50 years. We already are. America, as a powerhouse in the world for good and for freedom, is totally in jeopardy because we have not decided that we are going to move in a direction of diverse energy sources and where we can produce our own.

It is so critical, in my opinion--and I say to the new Senator from Colorado--I predict that in your first term as Senator, we will be in the shale oil of Colorado again. We will be there with terrific research and experimentation saying can we convert that shale to oil because there sits oil in abundance. But you have to convert it. We tried it 30 years ago, but oil was not expensive enough. We are in such a bind, we will even look at that.

Canada will produce oil from tar sands in abundance because we have to find some way to lessen our dependence while we make a transition to something else.

I have been on the Budget Committee since a year after the Budget Act was written. I regret to tell my colleagues that everything that is used in the budgeting of America--I am going to use a terrible word-- was invented by me. It was invented by me and my staff. The first reconciliation ever used, we used it. It was a total argument about whether it was right or wrong. We won on the floor and said it was right. Every year we would use reconciliation, there would be an argument about whether it was right.

Reconciliation does not mean the bill that is adopted pursuant to it or voted pursuant to it is automatic. It still has to get 51 votes, and it still has to be signed by the President. So for those who think this is an easy way to get through the process without any of the legislative and executive input, they are mistaken. But conversely, if a Budget Committee says we need additional revenue and we would like the Energy Committee to furnish us with new revenue and then gives the Energy Committee an instruction that says produce new revenue, for example produce revenue that flows about like this: 400 million, 600 million, 2 billion in each of these years, that is what the Senate voted on when we pass a budget.

The instruction comes to the Energy Committee and it says ANWR receipts will produce a certain amount of money, therefore write a bill in response to that order. The reconciliation process then, produces that amount of revenue. That is absolutely legitimate. That is what the Budget Act has been used for in the last 27 years.

I regret to say there are some who do not think that is how reconciliation ought to be used, but they lost that argument a long time ago. That is long past. The Senate wrote an act and we are living with it. I have already told them over 50 times in the past 20 years: You said this was a way to avoid filibuster. You said this was a way to avoid prolonged debate. Now we are using it. That is what we are doing here. There is absolutely nothing that says it cannot be done.

Whatever questions you have about what else might be done, we will take them up in their proper time, and if they come up, they come up.

This one we already did. We sent it all the way to the President as a reconciled bill, and then President Clinton vetoed it after it was done. If the President had signed the bill, oil from ANWR would currently be flowing and our dependence on foreign oil would be much less.

So it seems that these letters being circulated by Senator Kerry and President Jimmy Carter, those very activist environmentalists, will have nothing to talk about tomorrow when we win this, and 4 weeks from now when we produce the bill. They have to understand, we have been trying for 24 years. A filibuster means we have to have 60 votes, unless there is a procedure which permits us to do otherwise.

I say to my friend, the Senator from Colorado, this is not simple, nor is it profound. It is very cumbersome. There is a lot to it, but it is absolutely proper. It means that if this million barrels of oil a day is important enough, we

will do it with a simple majority, but we still have to have a majority. We will put it in a bill, it will go to the President, and if the President wants to sign it, he will sign it. If he does not, it will not become law.

I do not think we ought to be accusing anybody about doing this in a tricky manner or in some untoward way because such is not the case. It just is not the case.

Tomorrow I will talk, for those who want to listen, about why we will do so little harm, if any, to the environment, and why there is no project, including Prudhoe Bay, that we can go see that shows what this is going to look like with new technology. There are none. It is absolutely so different from what we have ever done before that it is going to be amazing.

I close by saying those of us who went to Alaska saw a production facility called Alpine. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did not go with us. I wish he had. The 96 acres of land at Alpine had upon it the entire oil production facilities--the oil wells, not one but several so close together that it looked almost like a row of outhouses at a public park. Each outhouse has a well in it--that is how little it was--an oil well. Each oil well had six or eight wells underground.

I will show one of those tomorrow. That little 96 acres had no roads. Instead, ice roads were built in the winter that simply melt away in the summer. In the summertime, there are no roads to it because they have melted. The facility produces 120,000 barrels of oil a day because under that little piece of property are wells that go down 7,000 feet, find the oil, and go up 4\1/2\ miles and drain the field. There is another one that goes down, and there are five new wells sprout out from under it, and coming out of the wellhead is 3,000 to 4,000, 5,000 barrels a day from one well. They have been getting that for a long time.

It seems to me that it is rather ironic that we are all here talking about a crisis. We are suggesting it is not a big enough crisis to worry about a million barrels a day. We are also suggesting that we ought to do other things. This Senator has been here a while. First, this is the proper way to do it. Second, if anybody has another proposal for a million barrels of American oil, let's have it. It would be tremendous if we had a few more. If anybody knows how to conserve and pass through Congress a measure that would cause us to conserve 2 million or 3 million or 4 million barrels a day, put it on the table. It is not that if we did that we do not need this. We need them both.

I ask for an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President.

We worry about China bringing in all this, but almost 26 percent of the balance of trade is pure oil. We can stop the imbalance with China and continue to buy oil, and we will have a trade imbalance that is still going up, and we will be wondering whether we need a million barrels of oil a day from an area that is supposed to be explored that some do not even want to allow us to look at. I believe the time has come. I hope it is tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before Senator Alexander leaves the Chamber, I am pleased that I was late so he had to speak first and I could listen to him. His remarks were thoughtful, thought provoking, and conclusive. If Senators on the other side of the aisle will listen to what he said and think it through, they will understand that this situation is going to be resolved. If they continue to insist it be resolved their way, I believe the Senate will decide that they will change procedural rules.

Having said that, I remind those who are listening and those who have lived through very recent history that there have been some contentious nominees that we have considered in recent times and that the American people can vividly remember. Let me remind those listening: We had the nomination of Judge Carswell years past. That was a highly debated nomination. All kinds of things were said about his qualifications, his capacity. There was enough enthusiasm against him--rancor--that if the filibuster had been used and brought to fruition, he probably never would have gotten enough votes to break the filibuster. He would have been defeated that way. But that did not happen. There was an up-or- down vote, and he was defeated.

Remember recently when we thoroughly debated Clarence Thomas, how many weeks that went on; how many days the debate went on. That controversial nomination was not filibustered. There was an up-or-down vote, just as we Senators on this side of the aisle are almost begging the Democrats to let happen for current nominees. It happened in the case of Clarence Thomas and he won by two votes. It is obvious, that if those who opposed him--and they opposed him with a great deal of certainty that he should not go on the bench--would have chosen the course of today, they would have used a filibuster. Why didn't they? They didn't because historically in the Senate, traditionally in the Senate, where there is majority support for a nominee, a filibuster is not used.

Having said that, it is obvious to this Senator that somehow or another in the last 4 years there has been a new idea promulgated that the advice and consent function, which the Constitution says is our prerogative to give to Presidential nominees, allows the other side, when it has an objection to a nominee, to filibuster that nominee. There have been more filibusters in the last 4 years against judges than in all of this body's previous history. It appears that every time there is a contentious nominee, that tactic will be used. That idea was not in this body before 2000. That tactic was not used before to the same degree it is used now. It is an invitation, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the majority to decide that enough is enough.

The idea that we want to protect the minority goes both ways. Senator Alexander is right. Many of us have been in the Senate on this side of the aisle when we were in the minority. I came here when we only had 38 Republicans. We were the ones crying out for protection. But we didn't filibuster Federal judgeships. We didn't filibuster district

or circuit or Supreme Court nominees. That was for a number of years, not just one or two. For a number of years we were in the minority.

But the problems with requiring a super-majority is a concept that has been discussed by our Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton wrote:

To give the minority a negative upon the majority (which is

always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a

decision) is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the

greater number to that of the lesser.

Obviously, that is the case. Obviously, when we look at judges and history, the Constitution talks about advice and consent and clearly requires that a majority of the Senate consent. Our rules are not the only things that talk about advice and consent. The Constitution does. Our Founding Fathers, fully aware of this Hamiltonian quote, provided in the Constitution the events when more than a majority is required.

The Constitution said to override Presidential vetoes required more than a majority; to remove Federal officers under impeachment required more than a majority; to ratify treaties required more than a majority; to expel a House or Senate member required more than a majority; and to propose constitutional amendments required more than a majority. It did not say such was required when we are exercising our advice and consent power. Had that been a situation in our governance that required a supermajority, it would have been easy for the Founding Fathers to write that in. But they did not.

From this Senator's standpoint, the other side of the aisle, which talks so much about closing down Government if they don't get their way on this, ought to think it through carefully. Closing down the Government is something that ought to be used rarely. Even the words ought to be used carefully. ``Closing down the Government'' could mean we are going to stop funding education. It could mean we are going to close down all the national parks. It could mean we are not going to have enough money appropriated for our military. Closing down the Government, a threat from the other side of the aisle which they think would make us change our minds about this issue, is at least a two- edged sword and probably only a one-edged sword. That sword will be: Woe to those who close down Government over issues such as this.

Recall within the last 15 years, closing down Government was a threat, I regret to say, made by and carried out by some leadership in the House. The issue was thought by them to be paramount. But the public prevailed. The public said: The paramount issue is to keep your Government open, even if your cause is one you believe whole-heartedly in. From my standpoint, the threat is sufficient for me to seriously consider using this constitutional option so that advice and consent will be majoritarian instead of requiring 60 votes in the Senate.

The reason is easy for me. The Senate as an institution--its rules, its process--is marvelous. I have been here a long time. I support it. It is set apart by free debate, by opportunity to amend. But there also is precedent in our rules. There are requirements that the Senate think carefully about what they are doing regarding as important an issue as advice and consent. Some think, that Senator from New Mexico has been here too long; he has frequently said he admires and respects the rules of the Senate and has become accustomed to them. I have frequently said, for those who don't like the rules, wait until you are here 3 or 4 years--you will think they are great. Freshmen think we ought to get things done right now; forget the rules and the procedures. But let them stay here a term, and they understand what the Senate rules mean.

Understanding all that and feeling as I do about these issues, it seems to me we cannot continue to deny a man like Miguel Estrada a seat in the judiciary when there is more than a majority of the Senate who, after hours of debate, is willing to have a vote. The other side knows that such a vote has a majority of support so they prevent a vote from occurring. You can't keep doing that and expect the majority to sit by and say: It is just the current rules, you can't change them; don't worry about it. In fact, that is a dangerous proposition.

The bell will toll. If this is continued, there will be Members such as this Senator who will end up saying: We have had enough. We are willing to abide by the same rules when we are in the minority. It will apply to both Democrats and Republicans. We know some say we will be in the minority one day. Some of us are willing to say: Let it be the case for both, and let us rule by majority vote with reference to judicial appointees.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 9 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Patricia Lynn Scarlett to be Deputy Secretary of Interior and Jeffrey Clay Sell to be Deputy Secretary of Energy.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

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 Power Generation Resource Incentives & Diversity Standards, will be held on Tuesday, March 8 at 2:30 p.m., in Room SD-366.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding ways to encourage the diversification of power generation resources. Issues to be discussed include: renewable portfolio standards (RPS) efforts among states and the cost and benefits of a federal RPS program. New approaches to promoting a variety of clean power resources, such as wind, solar, clean coal technology and nuclear power, will also be considered.

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, U.S. Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150.

For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. President, I am pleased to have supported the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005,'' a bill that will prohibit discrimination based on genetic information with respect to employment and health insurance. This bill represents much cooperation on the part of my colleagues, and I want to thank them for all the hard work done on this important issue.

I am extremely pleased with today's passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as it marks a great milestone for those of us involved in the Human Genome Project. It seems only a short time ago that the Human Genome Project was created as a joint effort between the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. What progress we have made.

In the last 2 years, there have been many events celebrating the completion of maps of the human genome. The genome map has brought a promise of improved health through revolutionary new treatments for illness and disease. The ultimate result of mapping the human genome is a complete genetic blueprint, a blueprint containing the most personal and most private information that any human being can have. We will now have a wealth of knowledge of how our countless individual traits are determined. And perhaps more important, we will have fundamental knowledge about the genes that can cause sickness and sometimes even death.

Our personal and unique genetic information is the essence of our individuality. Our genetic blueprint is unique in each of us. However, as genetic testing becomes a more frequently used tool, we now must begin to address the ethical and legal issues regarding discrimination on the basis of genetic information. Questions regarding privacy and confidentiality, ownership and control, and consent for disclosure and use of genetic information need to be carefully considered.

An unintended consequence of this new scientific revolution is the abuses that have arisen as a result of our gathering genetic information. Healthy people are being denied employment or health insurance because of their genetic information. By addressing the issue of nondiscrimination, we are affirming the right of an individual to have a measure of control over his or her personal genetic information.

Genetic information only indicates a potential susceptibility to future illness. In fact, many individuals identified as having a hereditary condition are, indeed, healthy. Some people who test positive for genetic mutations associated with certain conditions may never develop those conditions at all. Genetic information does not necessarily diagnose disease. Yet many people in our society have been discriminated against because other people had access to information about their genes, and made determinations based on this information that the individual was too risky to ensure or unsafe to employ.

While the issue is complex, our objective is clear; people should be encouraged to seek genetic services and they should not fear its discriminatory use or disclosure. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is an important first step toward protecting access for all Americans to employment and health services regardless of their genetic inheritance. There is simply no place in the health insurance or employment sector for discrimination based solely upon genetic information.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature.

I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service, USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.

The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature.

I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service, USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.

The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this Senator from New Mexico has known Mr. Chertoff for a long time. I have been familiar with him professionally, primarily when he was legal counsel for a committee on which I served. In that capacity, I got to know his professional qualities, his intellect, his care in interpreting both the law and facts, and I am absolutely positive that he is going to make a superb head for this very complicated Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chertoff is a lawyer by trade and a judge by promotion within the profession of advocacy. Now, regardless of the profession or experiences of the person nominated to this position, there might have been some who asked: Why not some other particular area of

expertise? That could be asked in this case. But I am quite sure that when one looks at the myriad of problems addressed by and the kind of intellect, commitment, and most of all, integrity that Judge Chertoff has, it is clear that he is going to do a superb job on behalf of our country and the safety of our homeland.

My compliments to the President for sending this nomination to the committee, headed by Senator Collins, that reported him out quickly, and to the Senate for overwhelmingly voting for him today. I salute Judge Chertoff and wish him the best. I hope he is able to handle this job with the same kind of excellence that he has handled all the other jobs we have given him.

He has plenty of help, which he will need. This is not a job he can do alone. It is a very big agency, and I hope everybody who works there will be part of his team as he works to make Homeland Security operate in a way that is efficient and good for our country and for our people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the significant achievements of Joe F. Colvin, who is retiring as president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and acknowledge his many noteworthy contributions in building a strong future for nuclear energy, America's largest emission-free electricity source.

As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it has been my distinct pleasure to work closely with Mr. Colvin and his organization. I can personally attest to his leadership in guiding the nuclear energy industry through a period of extraordinary renaissance.

Mr. Colvin has provided more than 40 years of service to our Nation, first as a submarine office in the U.S. Navy and later in the commercial nuclear energy industry.

When he took the helm at NEI in 1996, conventional thinking was that the industry was stagnant and nuclear power had no future in America's energy mix. He rejected that view and tirelessly worked to advance nuclear energy's true capabilities--its proven safety, its contribution to our environment and its affordability.

After more than 20 years of debate, Congress passed legislation in 2002 designating Yucca Mountain as the site of Nation's used fuel repository giving our Nation clear direction for our used fuel management program.

Today, America's nuclear plants are now recognized as the significant assets they are, and the nuclear energy industry is more competitive than ever. In addition, several companies are testing an improved licensing process for new nuclear power plants.

Although Mr. Colvin is quick to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, his own work on behalf of the nuclear energy industry has paid enormous dividends. Through frequent testimony before congressional committees, conversations with senior Government officials and countless others, he has educated many about the value of nuclear energy and the promise it holds.

Hence, it is with mixed emotions that I wish Mr. Colvin, a great University of New Mexico Lobo, all the best in his retirement from the Nuclear Energy Institute. He has earned a well-deserved respite.

Mr. President, I introduce legislation that continues my efforts to address a significant problem in the state of New Mexico, a problem that the Judicial Conference of the United States has previously described as a ``crisis.'' According to the latest survey by the Judicial Conference, the weighted caseload for the District of New Mexico is now the fourth highest in the Nation. This is in spite of the fact that in 2002 Congress approved a temporary judgeship for New Mexico which the President has filled.

Based on this heavy workload, the Judicial Conference recently recommended 2 additional permanent judgeships, as well as an additional temporary judgeship for New Mexico; Only 2 districts in California, one in Florida, and one in New York were recommended to get more judgeships than New Mexico. The legislation I have introduced today reflects this recommendation.

In the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2002, the number of criminal filings per judgeship increased from 222 to 320. This is compared to the national average of 81. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that this is just short of four times the national average. During this same time period, the number of weighted filings increased from 673 per judgeship to 739. The national average is 504 and the Judicial Conference has set the benchmark at 430 weighted cases per judgeship. The District of New Mexico is clearly in need of relief from this crisis.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial in all criminal cases. The United States Supreme Court has called this guarantee ``one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' 386 U.S. 213. We must ensure that our States have the proper judicial resources to guarantee the basic right promised to Americans more than 200 years ago. The bill that I am introducing provides such necessary resources to New Mexico.

Without additional judges, this problem will only continue to grow as the country focuses more intently on the security of our borders. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to authorize these necessary additional judgeships for New Mexico.

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

Mr. President, I introduce legislation that continues my efforts to address a significant problem in the state of New Mexico, a problem that the Judicial Conference of the United States has previously described as a ``crisis.'' According to the latest survey by the Judicial Conference, the weighted caseload for the District of New Mexico is now the fourth highest in the Nation. This is in spite of the fact that in 2002 Congress approved a temporary judgeship for New Mexico which the President has filled.

Based on this heavy workload, the Judicial Conference recently recommended 2 additional permanent judgeships, as well as an additional temporary judgeship for New Mexico; Only 2 districts in California, one in Florida, and one in New York were recommended to get more judgeships than New Mexico. The legislation I have introduced today reflects this recommendation.

In the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2002, the number of criminal filings per judgeship increased from 222 to 320. This is compared to the national average of 81. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that this is just short of four times the national average. During this same time period, the number of weighted filings increased from 673 per judgeship to 739. The national average is 504 and the Judicial Conference has set the benchmark at 430 weighted cases per judgeship. The District of New Mexico is clearly in need of relief from this crisis.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial in all criminal cases. The United States Supreme Court has called this guarantee ``one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' 386 U.S. 213. We must ensure that our States have the proper judicial resources to guarantee the basic right promised to Americans more than 200 years ago. The bill that I am introducing provides such necessary resources to New Mexico.

Without additional judges, this problem will only continue to grow as the country focuses more intently on the security of our borders. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to authorize these necessary additional judgeships for New Mexico.

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