Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing regarding the current status of the Hard Rock Mining Industry in America previously scheduled for Thursday, September 23, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been cancelled.

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

How much time does the Senator from New Mexico have?

I will use 10 and I know there is another Republican Senator who is not here but he gave me another 10. I am just kidding. We will try to get by with 10.

I say to my good friend, I am just wondering, we have a President who is in the hinterland campaigning and we have an opposition candidate from your side. I wonder, how come all of you are coming to the Senate, one after another, telling us what your candidate is going to do? Can't he tell Americans for himself? Does he need you all to come down here and give a speech every day, five or six of you, one after another, talking about what your candidate is going to do?

No, I will not yield at this point. You have been talking for a long, long time, so let me speak.

Ten minutes and I gave you 2 extra minutes.

Mr. President, I have a speech on energy, but the Senator energized me so much that I want to speak a little bit about what he spoke about and then I will talk about the people in the Senate on their side of the aisle.

First, isn't it wonderful to say, fellow Americans, we need 10 million new jobs.

Senator Smith, you own a business; you know how people get jobs, right? Your business employs them, right? If things are bad in the economy, you cannot hire more, right? What good does it do for a politician to come up here and say we need 10 million new jobs? That is true. In fact, I would say we probably could use 20, although the truth is, we do not have that many people to be hired, but we could say that.

Well, that is no plan. That is a statement. How are you going to do it? Who are you going to follow? Are you going to follow the Clinton model? They say that did all those things. There is a lot of question whether that plan did all that. But why don't Democrats say: We are going to follow the Clinton plan? The Clinton plan was to raise taxes. It just happened that the economy was recovering. And the Democrats will say: Yes, but the country got very confident once we put in the increase in taxes because they thought we were going to reduce the deficit. That is really their idea of where they got their great, new jobs. That may be true, but nobody is saying they are going to do that.

They stand up and say: We need 10 million jobs. Bush is not producing them. We need 10 million jobs. Elect our man. That will take care of it. Does anybody believe that? It used to be they would say something better. When I came to the Senate, and we would have a downturn, the Democrats would come to the floor and say: We are going to add jobs. How? They would say: We are going to spend money. Do you know what they used to do? They would put a public works jobs bill on the floor and say: We are going to build bridges. We are going to build roads. We are going to build all these things. And the American people, like big, fat suckers, would say: Let's pass it. We are going to get new jobs.

We stopped doing that. I say to the Presiding Officer, have you ever heard of anybody doing that since you have been here? No. Do you know why? Because it does not work. By the time those new jobs would come on, do you know how many years passed, on average? Three years before they started; 7 years before they got finished. By then, there was a whole new set of problems. Right? The downturn was gone. It did not have anything to do with it, but they passed something. Or they said: Let's double all the spending in all these programs we have. That will put everybody to work.

Maybe we could get a chart here and say: We need 10 million new jobs. Let's put them to work with Government programs. We would see what that produced. The American people would say: Are you nuts? You want to spend $50 billion to put people to work? And then it would be invented work.

So the truth is, you have to say, when you talk about 10 million jobs: I have the secret of how to make the American economy grow--not how you wish it would, but how you are going to make it grow.

And I have not heard much. I have heard there is going to be more middle-income people getting tax cuts. Interesting. Has anybody put on a board how much that will cost? And will they really do it? And how much are they going to give the middle income back? And what will that do to create jobs? Most interesting. I would like to see it. Enough of that.

Second issue. Health care costs are too high. Let's take a poll. I say to Senators, put up your hand as to how many of you think health care costs are too high? I imagine you would get 100 votes. Right? One hundred Senators say health care costs are too high, health care costs are going up too much. Wonderful.

Now, let's go out to America and tell them that: I am running, and health care costs are too high. That is good. But now the question is, Are you telling us you know how to reduce the health care costs? What is your plan? What is your secret? Do you have some new way to do it? Let's hear how. I do not hear that because the one thing that is being said is, maybe the Government ought to take more people and let the Government take care of them in health care. But then, when you say, what do you want to do that for, is it that you mean you want more Government-owned and operated health care?

Now, I know when you say ``socialized medicine,'' they get very upset. But maybe you do not want socialized medicine. Maybe you only want half socialized medicine, not all of it. But, frankly, I do not see any plan. The only one I have heard about is the importation of drugs. And I am not going to argue that today. It has been argued back and forth.

I will just say, I have read everything I can about the importation of drugs and its impact on the costs of prescription drugs in America. And I guess I am prepared to say that there is very little empirical evidence that across the board, for really good kinds of medicines that are important today, and to our seniors, that in the long run, unless you physically take your body on a train or an airplane or car and drive to a foreign country and buy the prescription and bring it back, there is very little evidence that you are sure to get the right kind and that the price will be right if you ask it be shipped. Now, enough of that.

So the question is, we need 10 million more jobs. How will the Democrat Presidential candidate do it? And let's talk about it. And then we need to reduce health care costs; and let's ask, how would we do it?

Now, let me tell you, there is a lot of talk about the uninsured. Frankly, the most interesting thing is, they speak about a lot of children being uninsured. I submit that may be true. But when we were working 8 or 9 or 10 years ago on health care, I was involved. We asked some insurance companies: Well, how much does it cost to insure kids? Do you know what they said? ``We don't insure kids, children. We don't have any insurance policy that insures children.'' ``Are you kidding?'' ``Yes, we don't do that.''

Well, frankly, before that year was out, we pushed somebody. One insurance company finally put out a brochure that said: We will insure children. Do you know what. Very cheap. The thing is, most children are not covered that way. They are covered derivatively through their parents. Right? One of their parents gets a job. Their parent's job covers them and their kids. They buy insurance. They don't buy it only for themselves, they buy it for them and their children.

So, in essence, it is good to say: We need to cover more people. It is hard to say how you are going to do it. I submit if you put what the President is proposing side by side with what the Democratic candidate is saying, you at least have some very positive things you can measure that are being done that the President is proposing. The other one is untried, nice to talk about, beautiful rhetoric. But I think the President's basic ones, with some additional things added to it, will probably be the way we go as a country anyway.

Now, all the other issues that were raised by my good friend on behalf of their nominee could all be answered much the same way. So there are more poor people than there were before. Good statement. Not quite as many as they say, not quite as big a problem as they allege. But the question is, What are you going to do about it? How are you going to fix it?

Most of the time, we are down here on the floor of the Senate talking about education and the inadequacy of our education. It is most compelling to me that about 4 weeks ago, Alan Greenspan, who normally does not have anything to do with education, was being asked a question in one of our committees about the fact that we have a lot of people who are unemployed, we have a lot of people underemployed, we have very tough competition from overseas. What do we do about it, Dr. Greenspan? I say to my colleagues, he did not talk about any single American program. He did not say: Let's increase the Small Business Administration so it would help more small businesses. He did not say: Let's give a tax cut to somebody. Do you know what he said? He said: Well, if that is the case, I guess we better start educating our children better. That will do more for the unemployment, more for the underemployment than anything else: better technical education for children. I am surprised--

I ask Senator Murkowski, could I have 2 additional minutes? I say to the Senator, you are next.

But I am surprised that is not what we are talking about: How do we take that tremendous number of young people walking our streets, who are not educated, who do not have diplomas, and make them educated so they will get out of poverty? Not just coming down and saying they are but that they will get out of it. How will we be competitive? Because that kind of person will become technologically capable, and they will help make us competitive.

Mr. President, I said a couple weeks ago, 10 days ago, I was going to come to the floor once every day to talk about the Energy bill. I did not do that, but this is my third or fourth time.

We are rudderless, a ship that has no capacity to guide itself, when it comes to energy policy. We have a bill ready to go that can steer us to a better future. But there are still a number of Senators who refuse to hear the warning bells that require our action.

How much louder can those bells be ringing? There was a huge blackout in August in the East. A complete energy meltdown occurred in the West just a few summers ago. Oil prices are surging to record heights. Natural gas demands are increasing.

Prices of coal are higher and going up. Consumers are paying beyond the reasonable price at the gas pump. Our critical infrastructure lacks adequate investment--that is, in electricity and other things that relate to energy, refineries. Our electricity grid has no mandatory reliability rules, meaning we may have blackouts again which we thought Americans would never have again. If we pass the bill, we will be able to tell them that. Efforts to increase efficiency and renewable energy are anemic. The list can continue for a frighteningly long time unless we pass the Energy bill. I am committed to the Energy bill because it is necessary. It is the first step we must take in order to change our economy's destiny.

We can't increase domestic oil and natural gas production overnight. We can't snap our fingers and modernize our Nation's electric transmission grid. We can't expect renewable energy to appear online tomorrow. We can't move away from foreign oil toward a clean, hydrogen future all of a sudden.

We need an energy policy plan to move us forward to reach those goals. We need an energy policy in place so that businesses and investors have regulatory certainty. We need to make having an energy policy a priority.

Today, as we speak, there are events affecting our oil situation.

OPEC has decided to up its quota. Big deal. They were already producing over their last quota and are still over this most recently announced one.

Right now, OPEC is not in charge of how much a barrel of oil costs in the spot market. Why? They don't have enough capacity to weather the demands of the global market.

The weather, on the other hand, can affect the market greatly.

Hurricane Ivan is making OPEC look pretty weak. Oil prices have been volatile with each report of Ivan's predicted impact.

Right now, oil prices are just over $44. This morning the U.S. Minerals Management Service announced that 73 percent of the Gulf of Mexico oil production--that is about 1.25 million barrels of oil--and 41 percent of the gulf's gas production--about 5 billion feet of natural gas--have been shut in.

The longer the storm and its aftermath lasts, the longer imports from Venezuela will take to get to our southern ports. If refineries are shut down in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana due to Ivan, a 5-to-7- day delay in products getting to the market could occur.

The warning bells are ringing. We are living on the bleeding edge of supply and demand for oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable fuels. Let's get off the edge of this cliff and focus on achieving some energy security.

Instead of wringing our hands at each crisis and passing political blame around, we need to work together to get an energy policy in place. We have such a policy ready for action. It is called the energy bill. If the Democrats would agree to limit the number of amendments to about 10, we can pass this much-needed legislation. If they will not agree, then I want the American people to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for those that refuse to come to the floor and get this energy bill done.

Let's get to work and pass it.

I am quite surprised that when Members come to the floor of the Senate and talk about jobs, about growth, about competition, that they are not talking about energy. But they are not.

We have Hurricane Ivan, which makes OPEC look very weak. Oil prices have become very volatile, and the hurricanes, including ``Ivan the Terrible,'' are causing us to shut in huge amounts of oil all over the coastal areas because they can't leave those deep wells open in the wake of the hurricane. So they are creating another big uncertainty. I don't want to make it sound like I am only worried about energy and hurricanes; I just want to state the facts.

While we do that, I want to say that all of us, whether we come from a State far away from hurricanes, are deeply worried about what has happened and what might happen. We don't know. Nobody knows how heartfelt Americans are from the rest of the United States. We are prayerful. We are worried, and we hope and pray that what we hear about possible damage to parts of Louisiana doesn't happen. It would be without precedent if it happens--just terrible. So let energy set aside for a little bit as we look at that problem and hope we can do something to be helpful.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I want to share some highlights from this week's news about oil and its effect on our economy. Yesterday's Washington Post quoted Dr. Alan Greenspan's testimony before the House Budget Committee.

The economy is doing reasonably well. If it weren't for the

oil spike, I would be very optimistic where the economy is

going.

Chairman Greenspan said the spring surge in energy prices weakened the economy more than analysts expected. He suggested that uncertainty about oil prices continues to cloud the economic outlook.

Financial analysts have also lowered the forecast expectations for our American economy growth over the next year. For example, an economist with Global Insight said:

Persistent high prices of oil remain a shadow over the

recovery.

On Wednesday, the President of OPEC stated that high oil prices would undermine the economies of the United States and Europe by 2 percent. These high prices exist primarily because of soaring demand for oil in tightly stretched markets.

In its weekly report, the Energy Information Administration reported that spare capacity to pump more oil is near the lowest in decades. EIA said global oil production is running around 99 percent of estimated capacity. Just yesterday, the EIA stated in its short-time market outlook that it expected oil prices to average $40 until mid-2005 despite OPEC efforts to increase oil production. Low surplus capacity is obviously with us. Similarly, the Paris-based International Energy Agency acknowledged the same. Given the limited spare capacity, some people are worried about whether there will be sufficient oil to meet demand. We all know what that will do if it continues.

Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal there was an article entitled, ``Demand for Oil Could Outstrip Supply.'' In the article, the Washington-based oil-forecasting group, PFC Energy, warned that the energy industry may be without the capacity to produce sufficient oil to meet the needs. In their study, the PFC maintains the world will not be able to produce more than 100 million barrels a day, only 20 percent more than the current global supply of 82 million barrels a day.

Oil analysts who believe we are running out of oil or that we have peaked are still in the minority, but the numbers are getting more and more ominous. We should heed these warnings.

PFC concluded that the limits of global oil production will mean the demand for oil will have to be curbed and alternative sources of energy will have to be found.

Herman Franssen, the President of PFC and a former chief economist for the International Energy Agency, said the PFC's conclusion tells policymakers that they have a decade to put our house in order. For instance, it takes that long to retool the car industry to use another fuel. We must begin working on that, and we are. Well, we do not have a decade to put our house in order. We cannot afford to wait until the house crashes in around us taking our economy, our energy security, and our future well-being down with it.

We need to act now before this session of Congress ends. We must show the American people that our economy and our energy security matter, that they are important.

We must show the American people we are willing to take steps to lessen our oil dependency by producing alternative sources of fuel that sends a signal to the world we are going to have more natural gas because we take steps, with far more renewables, that we are going to clean up coal so we can use it. Yes, we may even provide some incentives so we might produce, nuclear powerplants to add to this fast pace. We need to correct the shortcomings of our electricity supply so we do not have any blackouts anymore.

Well, guess where these things and more are found. They are not running around in the sky. They are not here in the rhetoric. They are in a bill. They are in an energy bill. We produced it and we lost it by two votes. Those who said they did not like it on the Democrat side said it was because of an additive clause regarding MTBE. It is a Government-approved additive. There was something in the bill that said we are going to protect those who manufacture it because they are not to blame for what happens downstream. However, we were led to believe that was enough to kill the bill. We took it out.

Madam President, up there at the desk, ready to be called up, ready to become our energy policy--because the House will accept it with some modification of MTBE that will not be the hold-harmless provision, but yet we do not get anything from the other side that indicates they would let us have a bill, they would let us pass a bill.

I think the American people--because we have not called the bill up and let them kill it like they did one time, two times--are wondering. But I do not want them to wonder anymore. We have a very good energy bill. We have it ready to get passed. If the question is, Why haven't you done it, it is not on this side. It is not on this chairman who worked 18 months to get a bill, with a lot of help from all sides, and ultimately the House. It is the Democrats who will not let us get this bill, plain and simple.

If anybody on that side in a position of authority--the leader on that side, Senator Bingaman on that side--would say, well, we need an energy bill, we are part of the problem in America, we want to solve it--if they just say that, Americans, we would have a bill in 24 hours. I urge that we try to do that.

I am very concerned we are short of oil, but we are not sending any signals that we are going to have a major policy shift that will permit us to have alternatives and not become dependent on the world for natural gas. Can you imagine that with the chief new energy source-- natural gas--we are moving in the direction, without this energy bill, where soon we will say: What happened? We are in the same muddle on natural gas as oil. We will become dependent on foreign countries.

Pretty soon we will say, well, we use natural gas to fuel our powerplants because it is clean. We are using it in our homes and businesses because it is great. But what do you think about that? We are dependent on foreign countries again.

We are leaving offshore natural gas, which can be drilled for, we are leaving it there because we need to change some rules or they cannot do it. We are leaving natural gas in Alaska that can be used--not the argument over crude oil in the wilderness area; that should be done for America, but that is not the issue in this bill. In this bill it is natural gas, in large quantities, delivered to Chicago for dispersion in America. Why don't we do that? Well, we cannot do it if we cannot pass a bill.

So I do not need the whole 10 minutes. Perhaps I made my point. I hope so. I have been here twice this week. I guarantee you, if we do not make some movement soon, some people on the other side are going to get tired of seeing me down here, but I will be here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Bisti PRLA Dispute Resolution Act, which will resolve a conflict regarding coal mining leases in New Mexico and which will confirm the completion of all Navajo Nation land selections in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Arch Coal Company and the Navajo Nation have been deadlocked within the Department of Interior appeals process regarding certain preference right lease applications (PRLAs) in the Bisti region of northwestern New Mexico. When enacted, this legislation will resolve a complex set of issues arising from legal rights the Arch Coal Company acquired in Federal lands, which are now situated among lands which constitute tribal property and the allotments of members of the Navajo Nation. Both Arch Coal and the Navajo Nation support this legislation to resolve the situation in a manner that is mutually beneficial. In addition, this legislation will serve to mandate the completion of a long-standing set of land selections the Navajo Nation made under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In 1984 Amendments to that Act, Congress provided the Navajo Nation with its final opportunity, within 18 months of passage of the Amendments, to select lands in New Mexico as provided in Section 11 of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. The Navajo Nation exercised its rights under the 1984 Amendments, but since has sought to review, revise, and seek to select other lands to the potential detriment of mineral lessees holding leases on Federal public lands near the Navajo Reservation. This legislation would clarify Congress' intent that the Nation no longer has land selection rights available to it in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hope Settlement Act.

There are many reasons the solution embodied in this bill achieves broad benefits to the interested parties and the public. It will resolve a long-standing conflict between the Navajo Nation and Arch Coal and allow the Navajo Nation to complete the land selections in New Mexico that were made in the 1980s to promote tribal member resettlement following the partition of lands in Arizona to the Hopi Tribe. Specifically, Section 4(a)(1) will clarify and confirm that the Navajo Nation already has selected the lands to which it is entitled under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act and has no further rights under that Act to select lands in New Mexico other than those already selected by the Navajo Nation in the 1980s.

The bill also guarantees that Arch Coal, Inc. will be compensated for the economic value of its coal reserves. An independent panel will make recommendations to the Secretary of Interior regarding the fair market value of the coal reserves, gives the company bidding rights, protects a State's financial interest in its share of federal Mineral Leasing Act payments, and allows the Navajo Nation beneficial ownership in their lands.

The Secretary of Interior will issue a certificate of bidding rights to Arch Coal upon relinquishment of its interests in the PRLAs. The amount of that certificate will equal the fair market value of the coal reserves as defined by the Department of Interior's regulations. A panel consisting of representatives of the Department of Interior, Arch Coal, and the Governors of Wyoming and New Mexico will help determine fair market value. While the Interior Department is authorized to exchange PRLAs for bidding rights, the Department has not done so, largely because of the difficulty it perceives in determining the fair market value of the coal reserves. The panel method in this legislation will promote the objectivity of that process.

Upon the relinquishment of the PRLAs and the issuance of a certificate of bidding rights, the Department of Interior will execute patents to the Navajo Nation of the lands encompassed by the PRLAs. This is a win-win situation for all parties involved; is endorsed by the affected parties, and is a fair resolution to this on-going problem.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Bisti PRLA Dispute Resolution Act, which will resolve a conflict regarding coal mining leases in New Mexico and which will confirm the completion of all Navajo Nation land selections in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Arch Coal Company and the Navajo Nation have been deadlocked within the Department of Interior appeals process regarding certain preference right lease applications (PRLAs) in the Bisti region of northwestern New Mexico. When enacted, this legislation will resolve a complex set of issues arising from legal rights the Arch Coal Company acquired in Federal lands, which are now situated among lands which constitute tribal property and the allotments of members of the Navajo Nation. Both Arch Coal and the Navajo Nation support this legislation to resolve the situation in a manner that is mutually beneficial. In addition, this legislation will serve to mandate the completion of a long-standing set of land selections the Navajo Nation made under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In 1984 Amendments to that Act, Congress provided the Navajo Nation with its final opportunity, within 18 months of passage of the Amendments, to select lands in New Mexico as provided in Section 11 of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. The Navajo Nation exercised its rights under the 1984 Amendments, but since has sought to review, revise, and seek to select other lands to the potential detriment of mineral lessees holding leases on Federal public lands near the Navajo Reservation. This legislation would clarify Congress' intent that the Nation no longer has land selection rights available to it in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hope Settlement Act.

There are many reasons the solution embodied in this bill achieves broad benefits to the interested parties and the public. It will resolve a long-standing conflict between the Navajo Nation and Arch Coal and allow the Navajo Nation to complete the land selections in New Mexico that were made in the 1980s to promote tribal member resettlement following the partition of lands in Arizona to the Hopi Tribe. Specifically, Section 4(a)(1) will clarify and confirm that the Navajo Nation already has selected the lands to which it is entitled under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act and has no further rights under that Act to select lands in New Mexico other than those already selected by the Navajo Nation in the 1980s.

The bill also guarantees that Arch Coal, Inc. will be compensated for the economic value of its coal reserves. An independent panel will make recommendations to the Secretary of Interior regarding the fair market value of the coal reserves, gives the company bidding rights, protects a State's financial interest in its share of federal Mineral Leasing Act payments, and allows the Navajo Nation beneficial ownership in their lands.

The Secretary of Interior will issue a certificate of bidding rights to Arch Coal upon relinquishment of its interests in the PRLAs. The amount of that certificate will equal the fair market value of the coal reserves as defined by the Department of Interior's regulations. A panel consisting of representatives of the Department of Interior, Arch Coal, and the Governors of Wyoming and New Mexico will help determine fair market value. While the Interior Department is authorized to exchange PRLAs for bidding rights, the Department has not done so, largely because of the difficulty it perceives in determining the fair market value of the coal reserves. The panel method in this legislation will promote the objectivity of that process.

Upon the relinquishment of the PRLAs and the issuance of a certificate of bidding rights, the Department of Interior will execute patents to the Navajo Nation of the lands encompassed by the PRLAs. This is a win-win situation for all parties involved; is endorsed by the affected parties, and is a fair resolution to this on-going problem.

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

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

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 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 nominations of Karen Alderman Harbert, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and Domestic Policy and John S. Shaw, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene or Colin Hayes of the Committee staff at (202) 224-4971.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Lincoln, to introduce a bill to improve the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

The Compact is a uniform law that has been enacted by all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It establishes orderly procedures for the interstate placement of children and fixes responsibility for those involved in placing the child.

As the father of 8 children myself, I understand that all children deserve and need a safe and supportive environment. The bill I am introducing today will protect the safety of children who are placed across State lines for foster care, adoption, or residential care. This bill will ensure informed placement decisions, including a full exchange of information between sending and receiving States and it will set and enforce specific timelines for the permanent placement of children. The bill will also create Federal incentives to help foster children find safe and permanent homes.

It is estimated that some 20,000 children need to go to another State to find adoptive families. In such cases, safe and stable homes simply cannot be found in the child's State of residence, where they are typically bounced from one foster home to another. The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is premised on the belief that children requiring out-of-state placement will receive the same protections and services that would be provided if they remained in their home States. Yet, the median time spent in the foster care system by children in need of out-of-State placements is 43 months; 2 full years longer than the average time spent by an in-state-placed child.

The two primary reasons for an abused and neglected child to move to another State are adoption or foster care placement, typically into the care of relatives. The ICPC establishes uniform legal and administrative procedures governing the interstate placement of children and outlines the many steps necessary to place a child out of state. The ICPC is the best means we have to ensure protection and services to children who are placed across State lines for foster care or adoption. However, the ICPC was drafted 40 years ago, and through no fault of their original authors, has begun to show its age. It has now become outdated and a barrier to the timely placement of children across State lines.

Finding permanent homes for all children must be the highest priority of the foster care system. Children placed out of State need to be assured of the same protections and services that would be provided if they remained in their home States. Circumstances which make interstate placement of children necessary and the types of protections needed, offer compelling reasons for a mechanism which regulates those placements and Congress should expeditiously revise the ICPC to better serve the interests of these children.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Lincoln, to introduce a bill to improve the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

The Compact is a uniform law that has been enacted by all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It establishes orderly procedures for the interstate placement of children and fixes responsibility for those involved in placing the child.

As the father of 8 children myself, I understand that all children deserve and need a safe and supportive environment. The bill I am introducing today will protect the safety of children who are placed across State lines for foster care, adoption, or residential care. This bill will ensure informed placement decisions, including a full exchange of information between sending and receiving States and it will set and enforce specific timelines for the permanent placement of children. The bill will also create Federal incentives to help foster children find safe and permanent homes.

It is estimated that some 20,000 children need to go to another State to find adoptive families. In such cases, safe and stable homes simply cannot be found in the child's State of residence, where they are typically bounced from one foster home to another. The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is premised on the belief that children requiring out-of-state placement will receive the same protections and services that would be provided if they remained in their home States. Yet, the median time spent in the foster care system by children in need of out-of-State placements is 43 months; 2 full years longer than the average time spent by an in-state-placed child.

The two primary reasons for an abused and neglected child to move to another State are adoption or foster care placement, typically into the care of relatives. The ICPC establishes uniform legal and administrative procedures governing the interstate placement of children and outlines the many steps necessary to place a child out of state. The ICPC is the best means we have to ensure protection and services to children who are placed across State lines for foster care or adoption. However, the ICPC was drafted 40 years ago, and through no fault of their original authors, has begun to show its age. It has now become outdated and a barrier to the timely placement of children across State lines.

Finding permanent homes for all children must be the highest priority of the foster care system. Children placed out of State need to be assured of the same protections and services that would be provided if they remained in their home States. Circumstances which make interstate placement of children necessary and the types of protections needed, offer compelling reasons for a mechanism which regulates those placements and Congress should expeditiously revise the ICPC to better serve the interests of these children.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing regarding the current status of the Hard Rock Mining Industry in America previously scheduled for Thursday, September 16 before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been postponed until Thursday, September 23, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

The Senator from New Mexico would like to ask the majority leader a question.

I ask the majority leader, if Senator Reid would have no objection, if he could yield me 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I was in my office and I heard Senator Dorgan talk about the Wall Street Journal and the Energy bill, or at least he commented on it. The Energy bill that is pending at the desk, which the Democrats have refused to let us take up, does not have the MTBE provision to which the Senate Democrats and some Republicans objected. It is not in there. So who is holding it up? The Senate Democrats, led by Senator Bingaman, will not let us proceed on that bill.

It is most interesting. The distinguished Senator from Nevada read off a list of things we ought to be doing. The Senator ought to know that every single one of those, and more, is in that Energy bill. He talked about renewables from wind to solar and production tax credits. They are all in that bill. More natural gas is in that bill; research to use clean coal is in that bill. Also, we have language that will forever cause us to not have any more big regional blackouts in America, and on and on.

So let's be honest about it. The Energy bill, as a superbill, is pending. If they would just let us vote, we would have a bill for America that includes everything Senator Reid has talked about and more.

As far as us killing an energy bill with provisions for holding harmless the producers of MTBE, I suggest Senators get the bill and read it. That provision is out of the bill that our leader called up and that the Democrats decided to filibuster. They want us to get 60 votes on everything, including America's energy future. That is the way it is.

I yield the floor.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: Are we still in morning business?

Is it appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico to ask to speak at this time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, across this land, our people are driving up to the gasoline pumps, and they are filling their tank. In the last 6 or 8 months, every time they filled up their tank, the amount went up, up, and up. It peaked for a while, but still, in some parts of America, it is $2 a gallon, $1.90, $1.96.

Everybody understands that America has no energy policy. A few months ago, we had a blackout--remember--in the northeastern part of America, something a country such as ours should not have unless somebody intentionally and physically destroyed power lines or big connectors. But it happened because of overload, and it happened because we do not have an energy policy.

Natural gas, our most plentiful fuel and the one that is best for America's future, we thought we had enough for anything forever and ever. It turns out that unless we do something to increase our supply, it, too, is going to be in short supply. As a matter of fact, as tough as it is to admit this, unless we bring some huge new natural gas supplies on in America, this great land will go from dependence on crude oil to another state of dependence: dependence on foreign sources for natural gas.

We have solar. We have all the renewables. And at this time in our history, they are stalemated. The reason they are stalemated is because they need an energy policy. They need the Energy bill that is sitting up at that desk. It has production credits that existed before for all the renewables, for clean coal and its development. All of those are in this bill. The Energy bill is up there at the desk.

Rising oil prices and the fact we have no energy policy is dangerous for our national security, for our environment, for jobs, and for the personal prosperity of our people and our consumers.

Around the world, we are seeing increased demands for energy, increasingly thin reserves of fossil fuels, and increased instability of oil-producing countries. Demand for oil is growing. The price goes up and down, not so much because of supply but because there is no assurance of supply--interruptions, revolutions--and so America sits by and we look at it all, and I guess we would all like to say somebody else is to blame.

I hear in the campaign that nobody wants to talk too much about energy. One of the candidates said we have to stop being dependent on foreign oil. I am not standing here saying that Energy bill at the desk does that because we are already 60--and going up--percent dependent, and I defy anybody to have a plan to get rid of that. I guess if you want to order Americans to get rid of all their cars and buy little ones that get 100 miles to a gallon or 60, you might do something. But nobody will vote for that.

Is my time running out?

I thank the Chair.

So here is what we have to do. We have to look at ourselves and say: What can we do to produce all kinds of new alternative fuels that will give us a chance to prove to the world that we are not going to sit by and do nothing? We are going to say we are going to do something big about natural gas. This bill says some of the available outer continental gas, which is not environmentally precluded, can be gotten. We are going to say there is a huge supply from Alaska. Not the one everybody objects to. I should not say everyone. Some do, but I don't. But other natural gas can be brought to the central part of America, to Chicago, and in a few years it will provide another great source.

We have language in this bill that will stabilize electricity, in terms of regions. It will put in some standards. Yes, from everything we understand, it has a real chance of doing two things: encouraging investment in electricity, which we need desperately; second, seeing that we do not have any blackouts in the future.

Frankly, for the past 21 months--not alone but with other people--we have worked to develop a consensus on an energy bill. The other side, the Democrats, have insisted, because they filibustered the Energy bill, that we get 60

votes. Actually, the bill at the desk has been recrafted, so it seems to us it should get 60 votes.

It is not so good that we have to get 60. Americans used to think that 51 votes would win, right? They look at television and they say: What do you mean you lost that bill? You got 58 votes.

If we are filibustering, we need 60. We took out the portion of this bill that was most objectionable, and it is not in there anymore. I am not going into detail about it. Everybody in here knows it has to do with a piece of legislation that was in the original bill that held certain companies harmless from a fuel additive that was prescribed, mandated by the Federal Government, and OK'd by the Federal Government. Then when it got out in the field, if people caused it to leak or dropped it on the ground, it caused damage. So people want to make the companies that did it liable. In this body we don't want to say to those companies, ``You are OK.'' So we took that out. It is not in there.

The House of Representatives has done their thing. After we passed the bill big in conference, within 48 hours they passed it. It came here. We got 48 votes. As everyone knows, we had to try to fix it. We did. The Senator occupying the chair helped. He did a yeoman's job helping us, as did many other Senators. We tried to bring it up. Senators said: We will filibuster again. If we don't filibuster, we have scores of amendments to add to it.

Let me tell you, the Energy bill could do the following. Anybody who is interested in jobs ought to be for it. It would create more than 800,000 jobs. It would revitalize rural America by encouraging renewable fuels such as ethanol. It would increase the production of renewables of every kind--wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. It would build an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, encourage production of domestic natural gas besides Alaska, and domestic oil.

I am not overstating the oil. We can't produce ourselves out of dependence, but we can produce more than we are producing.

It can strengthen the future of the nuclear energy option, promote clean coal technology, promote hydrogen--which the President said we start with a $5 billion program because hydrogen may indeed be the fuel of the future; promote energy efficiency, increase our research and development in various technologies.

On electricity, I have stated it in generalities, but let me be very precise. It establishes mandatory reliability rules for the electricity grid and promotes investment and expansion of the electricity grid.

We have labored for years. There has not been an energy bill in 12 years. I don't know how comprehensive it was, but it was hard to get done, and it did a lot of things. Now we have many sound concepts in this bill. If we can reach agreement to limit debate to an agreeable, reasonable number of amendments--I suggest anything reasonable. Come down here and say 10 amendments on each side and then vote. I would like to try that. I will bet there are some on the other side who would object.

Why would they object? Is not 10 amendments enough for anybody to get their ideas to change this bill considered and get on with voting on it? I think it is. But let's hear something positive. I hope we can try that. Then at least Americans will know we tried. Americans will know, as we said, we need a policy to move forward.

Energy is a complex and multifaceted problem. To approach it as a single-issue problem is very small thinking and not the best way to move this country forward. The Energy bill is about big thinking, forward-looking principles that would guide us to better technologies, more secure energy, more secure resources that deal with energy and the safest operation of our energy assets. I suggest the Energy bill is a good place to start, and we ought to start soon. There is no other way.

I know my time is quickly running out, but I want to close by saying to the Democrats, to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman: Why don't you let us vote? There are many Farm Belt Senators. You would think they would be for this bill. They should be. I spoke of ethanol. It is in here. Some people don't like it, but at least it is a product. It is energy that is produced here. It is renewable to a great extent, and the farmers of America would very much have another serious crop.

Add it all together, I can't understand why those on the other side, the Democrats, would like to kill it. At least during this week, next week, and the week after, those concerned about renewables--clean coal, natural gas--everything I have spoken about today, they are going to know it wasn't the Republicans, it wasn't the President. It is those on that side of the aisle who do not want to let us do anything.

Mr. President, I hope I am wrong. I hope after all these months we will see something positive happen. If not, we will keep insisting that we ought to vote and get something done.

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