Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. I thank the Senate and the House conferees, as well as the leadership of both bodies, for their work over the past few months. Their perseverance has paid off. This bill represents a major step forward for this body on behalf of the seniors of this country.

Experts and fair-minded people have known for many years that the Medicare Program must be reformed. For more than 6 years, Republicans have led efforts to overhaul the Medicare system and ensure American seniors continue to have access to high-quality, comprehensive health care in the future. First, a little history. The Budget Act of 1997, when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, created the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. This Commission was created to address the issue of modernization. The Commission supported changes to the program that would have provided an additional prescription drug benefit as well as modernized the Medicare system-- not one without the other, but both.

Unfortunately, that Commission failed in part because of lack of support from the previous administration's appointees to address the fundamental problem of the program's design. A majority of the Commission was for it, but we structured it where 60 percent was required, and the President withheld his support after all the work that was done. The point is, clearly even back then we were tying modernization to prescriptions.

In 2001, again as chairman of the Budget Committee, the budget resolution provided $300 billion, and we are now up to $400 billion. The budget resolution said $300 billion for prescription drug benefits and it required modernization of the program. It said $300 billion way back then. Don Nickles, as chairman, took it up to $400 billion. It did not say for prescription drugs, it said for prescription drugs and modernization. Why? Because one without the other is never going to work. If you have a prescription drug benefit for the seniors and do nothing to the underlying Medicare Program, you have taken care of one of the problems for a couple of years but you will be back with a bigger problem. That bigger problem is the Medicare system itself. With the great change in demographics this country is going to be experiencing, we will be in big trouble.

Medicare beneficiaries have waited too long for prescription drug coverage. I am pleased this year appears to be a breakthrough year. Before we are finished, there will be many Senators we will be able to thank. This will be the year we finally help millions of Medicare beneficiaries obtain affordable prescription drugs. The bill will also provide substantial relief for those with the highest drug costs. It will also provide prescription drug coverage at little or no cost to those with low incomes.

When this bill passes, we will be providing seniors with prescription drug coverage for the first time since the program's creation in 1965. Across America, there are still millions of people who do not know that Medicare provides by law not one nickel's worth of prescription benefits. It is not that the benefit is inadequate or that it is written wrong, it just did not provide for a benefit; that need was not contemplated in 1965.

It has been hard to get a bill that really has a chance. This bill has a chance. It contains new accounting safeguards that put the program on a stronger financial foundation. The legislation contains preventive care measures, including screening for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It provides benefits for coordinated care for people with chronic illnesses. None of these benefits was provided under the 1965 act because the need was not contemplated as part of the health delivery system. These benefits are needed today, but they are excluded from the current Medicare system.

This is by far the best opportunity, speaking on behalf of my constituents in my home State, that New Mexico has had to get doctors, hospitals, home health care providers, nursing homes, and Medicare beneficiaries fair and equal treatment. Before this bill, each of these groups had been shortchanged by the health care laws of our country.

I am particularly pleased this bill contains $25 billion in initiatives aimed at providing health care in rural areas. We can thank Senator Grassley for being so steadfast on that provision. The Finance Committee estimates my home State of New Mexico can expect approximately $140 million over the next 10 years in increased doctor and hospital reimbursements. That is because we are so low. This brings us to parity and fairness.

This bill includes $50 million to equalize payments between large urban hospitals and rural and small hospitals, $15 million to increase payments to disproportionate share hospitals, $1 million in payments to critical access hospitals, $50 million in increased payments for doctors, and $3 million in incentive payments to encourage physicians to practice in areas where there are shortages.

Beginning in 2006, again for my State, all 250,000 Medicare beneficiaries living in New Mexico will be eligible to get prescription drug coverage through a Medicare-approved plan. This bipartisan agreement will give 55,000 Medicare beneficiaries in New Mexico access to drug coverage they would not otherwise have. Nearly 17,000 of those beneficiaries will qualify for reduced premiums, lower deductibles, coinsurance, and no gap coverage. Unquestionably, these provisions will help improve access to health care and treatment for seniors.

We have a great opportunity, fellow Senators, to fulfill our promise to the American people and provide our seniors with high-quality prescription drug benefits. I believe prescription costs will be manageable, even with the baby boom generation that will then be retiring. Some worry about the costs of this bill, but I am confident about the future of American ingenuity and competition, America's science achievements, and America's wellness achievements.

As I said this spring when we were debating this bill, we are not living in a stagnant world. American scientists today are reaching for health care breakthroughs linked to the mapping of the human genome. Advances in nanoscience and microtechnology will change medicine and health care as we know it today. However, while that work continues, this long-awaited prescription drug plan is what we need now. I am suggesting when I talk about the future breakthroughs that we may be astonished at how much we are going to be able to do that we cannot do today that may save lives and save money.

I encourage my colleagues to put their differences aside today and, most of all, to put their politics aside, and do what is best for the American people. Overwhelmingly, my constituents have contacted me and asked that I support this legislation.

Seniors need affordable prescription drugs, and if Congress fails to act this year, it will likely be many more years before beneficiaries are able to access prescription drugs through Medicare.

It is for those reasons--all of them; the national reasons and the parochial New Mexico reasons--that I have indicated that lead me to saying I will support this bill. And I hope we do it quickly.

Now, we have an additional Senator. Mr. President, how much time do we have left in this block of time?

Mr. President, I understand we have a Senator who is coming over to use that time. Until they do, I will yield that time to Senator Grassley.

Sure.

I say to the Senator, Senator Grassley is in charge. I will just wait to see what he says.

Mr. President, I want to make sure that we understand the timing. I asked Senator Craig if he would come to the Senate floor so I could give him some time. I wonder if 5 minutes would be enough.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

I thank the Chair.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Yes. I say to the Senator, we are not using your time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, I am very pleased I got to know you in the past year and a half. I do not think we would have had a chance to meet each other but for the energy crisis. I visited your State. And everything you have said today, and on the floor time after time, about what is going to happen in your State because of what is happening to the water line is true. We can kill this bill and kill that. You know how long you have been waiting for it.

And you are going to wait 60 more because there is nobody going to pass another bill like this with these kinds of things in it for a long time. Why do I know that? Because I have been through it. And every time we just about get there, somebody has some objection, and we have a big hole, it all falls in, and nothing gets done.

I say to the Senator, thank you for your effort. I appreciate it.

How much time remains on each side?

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to Senator Burns.

Has Senator Burn's minute expired?

Mr. President, first of all, there are a lot of people to thank for getting us where we are. We are a long way from where we started. I want to thank them. In particular, on the Democratic side I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana--from the very beginning; thank you very much for all your help and all the others who put a lot of work into this.

I regret very much the statements that this bill was done in privacy and secrecy, in some way different in terms of a conference than most conferences around here. But I would like to tell the Senate, energy is a big hole in the Congress. Energy policy is a big hole, and we keep dropping problems in it but we never solve them.

Everyone talks about conservation and renewables, but we happen to be talking about those and production. As soon as you start talking about production, somebody produces and they are certainly not nonprofit corporations. So as soon as you say ``produce and we'll give you an incentive,'' you are ``giving money to big companies.'' You are giving it to companies who will do the job and wouldn't otherwise do it.

I want to repeat, for everybody, the history. Last year we could not write a bill in committee. Think of that. My good friend, Senator Bingaman, talks about how poorly we conducted ourselves. They couldn't write a bill in committee. So we wrote it on the Senate floor. Do you all remember that? We were down here, humiliated that we had to write an Energy bill on the Senate floor because we couldn't write it in committee.

Then what happened? We went to conference with the House. And, boy, if it was ever a storybook conference, it was wide open. And it took month after month, and guess what happened, Senator Burns--zero. Nothing was done. So there is another one, the big hole sucked it up. But we did it right. We had a conference. We had it open.

This Senator decided that to do it that way would yield nothing. For the first time I decided that we should write the bill differently and we should circulate it differently. Most of this bill was put on the Internet. In fact, that is the first time in history that a conference report was on the Internet. Anybody who wanted to read this bill had weeks and weeks to read all but the last 15 percent. It was on the Internet. It was delivered to every single office. If you didn't read it, that is not my fault. Then for the last part we gave the opposition 48 hours' notice on the Internet to everybody.

Do you know, this bill was more discussed by the press, piece by piece, than any conference report in the history of America? You will never find a conference report that is reported piecemeal in the media of America.

So where was the clandestine bill? Everybody knew about it. The problem is, just as before, the Democrats didn't like it. Yet they offered amendments. For not knowing anything about it, the distinguished Democrat leader offered 21 amendments, or at least he had them ready. We discussed them. The fact they didn't win them, does that mean the bill is no good? What would you expect when you go to conference? I heard somebody say we should have passed the 15 or 20 percent mandates for renewables. Yes, we should have. We did in our committee. But what do you know about it, the House said no. Not only ``no,'' but ``absolutely no.'' So what do we do, throw the bill out? Of course not.

We have the most powerful renewable provisions in history.

I want to tell everybody the true facts. We have worked harder for the farmers of America than anybody in history. The farmers who are looking to see who is for the farmers, once and for all, you can look to the Republicans, not the Democrats; for the Democrats are leading a parade to kill the most important provision ever thought up for the farmers. The Republicans are here, trying to get it done.

Senator Grassley stood in a corner with his arms out, put on the armor and said, ``It will be this way or we don't have a bill.'' We got it. And guess what. We are just about to throw it away.

If I were the farmers of America, I would ask: Who threw it away? And they are going to all know, the people who killed this bill threw it away. And guess what. Over the last 3 or 4 days, an array of people who build wind energy and solar energy in America walked up to our office. Incidentally, Senator Grassley, before they opened their mouth about the bill, they thanked you because they said all significant wind energy will stop if this bill is not adopted. They didn't say ``tone down; we will come down at half mast.'' They say it stops, because wind energy is predicated upon the credits in this bill, the most significant credits in history; solar energy, the most significant credits in history. Renewables will go faster and farther with this bill than they ever have.

But I don't believe you can leave here today having voted, especially if you vote to kill this bill, and walk out and tell people: Oh, don't worry, we will take care of the farmers next week. Next week is not going to come because I am aware of what it is. You will not get this ethanol bill through the House again. So it is gone and there are some people walking around liking that. Some people have a smile on their face. But I tell you there is no way to get this ethanol bill through the House. I can't imagine another format where Senator Grassley can do what he did and we get this issue out of conference and here.

Then we have all the other things in this bill that we thought were interesting and good for America. They are all falling by the wayside because, for the first time, people have brought an issue called MTBE to the floor and talked about it. The United States House said we ought to hold harmless the product called MTBE--just the product, not people who spill it, not people who cheat with it, not people who, instead of putting it in cars pour it on somebody's lawn--we didn't protect those. We just said the product is OKed by the Environmental Protection Agency, approved by the U.S. Government, and whether I liked it or not, the House said let's hold them harmless for the product itself.

Frankly, I am just beginning to read some stories about the lawsuits on MTBE. In fact, if we had another day at it, I would give you some that would shock you as to what is going on in the United States with these MTBE lawsuits. I can tell you there is one in one State--we got a message on it. Somebody is walking around trying to drum up the lawsuits. It happens to be the chairperson of the bar association of the State. She went to one city that wrote us a letter and said: We told her we are not interested. As far as we know there is no problem in our city with MTBE. Go someplace else and look for your lawsuits. Precisely what I said yesterday--precisely.

In addition, if you like blackouts, then you vote to kill this bill because this bill provides a clear, absolute remedy for blackouts.

I thank the Chair. I think the majority leader is here. I yield at this time.

Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding achievement of a hospital in my home State of New Mexico. Nor-Lea General Hospital, which is located in Lovington, New Mexico, was recently honored as one of the Nation's ``Top 100'' Hospitals by Solucient Corporation, a healthcare information company, in their 10th National Benchmarks for Success study. Nor-Lea was recognized because they have demonstrated superior clinical, operational, and financial performance in overall service.

I am proud to recognize Nor-Lea Hospital for its strong commitment to help the community. Too often we hear about hospitals that are struggling; hospitals asserting they can not save money and improve patient services and thus are not able to meet the needs of their communities.

Nor-Lea represents the exception. They represent the value of management, not only to save money, but also to improve efficiency. Nor-Lea is demonstrating what kind of performance is possible when this is done and they are setting new targets for performance improvement across the industry.

Nor-Lea General Hospital is a 25-bed Medicare-certified facility. Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and private pay are accepted for services rendered. Nor-Lea General Hospital offers comprehensive outpatient services, which include a state-of-the-art laboratory facility with national lab affiliations, radiology services, MRI, bone densitometry, fluoroscopy, x-ray, ultrasound, and respiratory services.

The hospital also has a newly enlarged emergency room which is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each month about 385 individuals utilize this emergency room.

Nor-Lea was recognized as a top performing ``Small Community Hospital'' because of their higher survival rate and because they spend less money, release patients from the hospital faster, and have fewer employees. In short, Nor-Lea treats more of the sickest patients, while maintaining high customer service and preserving profits in a difficult marketplace.

Congratulations, Nor-Lea General Hospital. I hope that your success will be a catalyst for continuous hospital performance improvement.

Mr. President, I was going to go next, but I note the attendance of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. He would like to speak, and I will yield to him.

Let me make one or two observations regarding the speech just delivered. First, I thank the Senator from Texas for the reasonableness, the rationality of his discussion. He would not believe, the people who have listened to the debate over the last couple of days would not believe the facts as you have described them, which are the facts, with reference to MTBE. This bill does not say if somebody misuses MTBE, negligently spills it, if they have tanks that leak, if they are not careful to keep it where it is supposed to be, it doesn't say those kinds of actions are rendered nonactionable in tort liability.

The safe harbor is very narrow. It says the producer of the product, which has been determined by the Government and to date determined by scientists to be totally safe and very effective, it says those who made the product are not liable for the mere fact of making it and selling it. They are not liable. If it causes harm because of other actions with reference to it, then the hold harmless does not apply. That is what the Senator has been telling us today; plus, he has enlightened us that, even as we speak today, contrary to the elaborate statements regarding people who have been damaged and hurt, the scientists in the Government still say, as a product, it is safe; as a product, it is tremendously effective; and as a product, the Government isn't even considering doing anything about it. They are not out there saying we want to stop it. I have not heard that from the EPA or anyone else--I think because they would have no evidence--that there is anything wrong with the product.

I say to everybody in this country who wants ethanol, ethanol may prove, as an additive, in 15 years to cause some damage. Are we going to go back 15 years and say to the farmers who grew the crops that went into ethanol: You are collectively, as the farmers of America, liable for producing the corn that produced ethanol that produced a problem 15 years later? I doubt it, because I don't think anybody would be down here saying we want to stick all these hundreds of thousands of farmers. But right now we are saying: Have at it, trial lawyers, we hope you can get after these guys because somebody got hurt. Sue the companies that produced it. People are saying: After all, they are rich companies.

That is not the American judicial system. Liability is not based on whether you have a successful company. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons some people are upset about this safe harbor is that they think the ones with money are the ones that are going to be in this safe harbor; namely, those that produced a product. They don't think there is going to be enough money for them out there in the marketplace where other things have gone wrong. They don't want to have to look for people who had leaky tanks and sue them and their insurance companies. They want to leave that to somebody else, right? They want to go after one of these companies--I don't know which one--and a number of them are in Texas. People will say: There is that old Texas again.

Well, Texas has about 13 companies that produce various products related to this whole area, not just this. Some of them produce this product. If I were the Senator from Texas, I would be right here doing what he is doing. The Senator is not opposed to those companies, right, or embarrassed by them? He is saying: Good luck. He is not embarrassed that they are making money. I assume they pay a salary to people in his State. I assume these towns like them. They are not doing anything to these towns. There is no pollution in the towns where it is being produced.

Those who would kill this bill over this issue have said to the farmers of the United States who want to use their crops to produce ethanol--if you vote this bill down based on this MTBE issue, you are saying to the farmers in your States--there are 12 or 15 of them--that have lots of corn and soybeans: We are taking the trial lawyers over you. You are saying: We have a choice to make and tomorrow morning we will make it, and we will choose the trial lawyers; we want to help them and forget about the farmers. That is the issue, as I see it. This will not end because we are going to go into MTBE today in a little more detail.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

(Mr. GRAHAM from South Carolina assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, I struck an agreement with a couple of Senators who have been waiting to speak. Senator Nickles would like to follow me. I ask unanimous consent that he follow me. Secondly, the Senator from California, who was just here a bit ago, asked that she proceed next, and I ask unanimous consent she proceed next.

No, we are not.

The Senator can speak after the Senator from California. That is fine. She is right here.

And I am going to speak for 20 minutes now.

I have no objection, but I would like to add, with that agreement, that the distinguished Senator from the State of Kentucky would like to speak, and he will either speak before the Senator from Vermont, if the quarter of 2 has not yet arrived, or after the Senator from Vermont speaks.

That is the junior Senator from Kentucky who is asking for time.

Mr. President, I sure hope the people in this country and those who have written about MTBE were privileged to hear the few remarks that took place this morning about the issue from the distinguished junior Senator from Texas and the Senator from Louisiana. I don't plan to speak anymore about MTBE now, but before the afternoon is finished, I will speak to it with a little more detail so people will understand that the House asked us to do this, and they didn't ask us for anything unreasonable. This is a very valid approach to a problem that cries out for a solution, other than to turn it loose and let anybody sue however they would like and see what happens.

Having said that, I wish to talk about this bill that is before us from the standpoint of what is going to happen if those who have come to the floor and been so critical of the bill prevail and we don't have this bill.

I don't want to go back and spend a lot of time duplicating the words that have been used about this bill. Suffice it to say, there have been enough negative words used about this bill that one might consider it is the worst thing that ever happened.

I would like to tell each and every one of the Senators and each and every American who is concerned what is going to happen if this bill doesn't pass.

The impression is this is just a big bill that somebody put together that has a lot of pieces to it. We don't like some of them and some of them we think are giveaways, so we ought to just kill it. I am going to use the word ``kill'' for a little while because I assume those people who have gotten up and talked that way would like to kill the bill.

First, if we kill this bill, fuel diversity efforts that will help reduce our dependency on foreign oil and gas will be killed along with it. In other words, this bill is a conscientious effort to help American industry, large and small, produce alternative sources of energy for America and, in many instances, to do that, they have been given a tax incentive. All of those alternatives will be dead when this bill is killed, if it is.

The ethanol program, which many have wanted for years--a few in this body don't like it, but let's just take it for what it is--everybody should know the ethanol program is dead, killed, gone, out the window.

Now, there are some who would applaud it, but the overwhelming number of people, and the entire agribelt of America, is cheering that we pass it, not that we defeat it. I, frankly, do not see any way, I say to all the farmers in this country, of ever getting an ethanol bill anywhere like this if this bill is killed.

So to repeat, for those who think we need ethanol to provide an alternative 5 billion gallons a year to the use of crude oil gasoline, and for farmers who want an alternative crop, kill the bill and you have killed that forever.

The renewable fuels provision would replace 5 billion gallons of oil with 5 billion of domestic-produced ethanol. I have alluded to it. It will die with the death of this bill.

Over 800,000 job opportunities for our citizens will go out the window, dead, killed, for those who relish speaking about killing this bill.

Clean coal initiatives, which for the first time say to America, America, you are king, K-I-N-G, King Coal, and we want to provide some incentives so you might use some of that coal. Well, for those who want to kill this bill, ``King Coal'' will remain a dead product. We can inventory it, we can take note of it, and we can brag that America has coal that will run the country for--I do not know how long. The last time I read something, it would run it for 500 or 600 years. Out the window, no chance to use it because we will be using every other fuel led by natural gas and we will soon be importing liquefied natural gas because there is no way we are going to use our coal.

So let me repeat in simple phrases, ``King Coal'' will remain dormant but for the small amount being used. Not a new powerplant will be built using coal. It is dead.

Yesterday there was a report by a commission. The commission worked since the Northeastern blackout. They issued a report, and the summary of the report is two or three pages long. What they have concluded, I say to my colleagues, is that the principal reason for the Northeast blackout is that some companies were not following the voluntary reliability standards. Then those who made the study conclude that if this bill is passed, there should not be another blackout because the reliability standards are made mandatory and they will be enforced by criminal penalties. So nobody is going to run around taking a chance with overloading and breaching the reliability standards. Reliability means that one is doing what is prudent and there is no more reference to the use of these lines.

So let us summarize that one. For the time being, and I think for some time to come, the blackouts in America will remain alive and possible because we will have thrown out the window the reliability standards that are in this bill because some want to make the case on an issue such as MTBE or the like which we are talking about today.

There is regulatory certainty required for the utility industry. If we fail to provide that, FERC, with congressional direction on issues such as standard market design and transmission pricing, will be gone. They will be dead. The repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act will be killed.

Some people have said if nothing else was in this bill, the repeal of PUHCA, a 1935 vestige that hangs around over the utility industry, prohibiting investment over some kind of fear that is no longer a reality--and look how long we have been waiting to get rid of PUHCA--I think it would be fair that I could say if this bill is killed, PUHCA is here forever. So industry that is waiting for an injection of money, they can sit by and eke out investment because the principal impediment will still be there. The repeal will have been killed.

There are some who say because their States have had some unlucky or unfortunate situations, such as Enron, that consumer protections are necessary and then, of course, they look at this bill and say, I know what protections I want and they are not exactly the way I want them in the bill, so they come to the floor and say there are no protections. But I say if this bill is killed, you kill the consumer protections in this bill which are against fraud, manipulation, which force increased transparency, which increase penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act, and they close the Enron fraud loophole.

Now, you can throw all of those out the window for people who want to find fault and want to talk about a turkey and want to talk about the goodies in this bill, but I am telling you what you lose when you lose this bill. I am ready for anybody to come and say it is not true.

How are we going to get these if this bill dies? Will the House come marching down the aisle, just having gone through this exercise, and say, oh, well, let's just start next week and do another one? Does the Chair think so? I think not. Do my colleagues think this Senator spent the better part of a year on it, and do they think I am going to march to my committee and start hearings and saying, oh, well, we did the best we could but we better just start over again because we heard so many speeches? Not on your life. The speeches had little to do with the important provisions in this legislation.

They had to do with things that were put in the legislation, as everyone knows, when it is run through both the House and the Senate and individual bodies and then through a conference.

Tax credits--let me say I am aware of the tax credit game, and this bill is filled with tax credits that people wanted and needed and on which I am sure some of my good friends are quite certain we were too generous. I note the presence of my great friend Senator Nickles and I am sure he is not going to get up and speak about MTBE and we ought to take it out, but he is going to wonder whether we put in too many tax credits.

For every newspaper article and editorial that said: let's kill this bill, it is no good, there are hundreds of letters of support from the people affected. They do not write editorials. They write and tell us their problem.

The people who build and sell windmills and have giant windmill projects going, they are very clear. This is the best thing that ever could have happened to them. We have made permanent the production tax credit that is sending windmills soaring in the United States, and I do not mean soaring in the air, I mean soaring in numbers.

Some ask: Do you really want those, Senator? And I sometimes chuckle. I drive around and see some of them, and I am not sure. But they will build them pretty before they are finished. They will even be good looking. Right now, some people write us letters and say: We don't want any more of those. Some people in Massachusetts wanted us to put something in this bill saying the local community could stop them if they didn't want them. We couldn't get that done if we tried. In any event, the credits for that are gone. If we pass the bill, we will see it soar.

Regarding solar, we received all kinds of congratulations and support from the solar industry, saying it will finally go now. It will go, but it is dead in its tracks when this bill dies, if it dies. I don't think it is going to. At least I hope not.

You can go right on through. Biomass and all the others are anxiously waiting so they can begin to produce alternatives, adding to the totality of what we will use for energy in America.

We have been so bold that we say the next generation, economically speaking, will be the hydrogen generation. I am not sure about that, but this bill starts us down that path. I don't know where we are going to pick up a bill that will put together the kinds of things that are involved, such as $1.6 billion to start joint ventures with the automobile companies to build this.

Then there is nuclear. France leads the world. While we tremble, they build. While we worry, they have 78 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. While we run around worrying where are we going to put this waste product, do you want to take a trip to France? They will show you where they put theirs. It is a building that looks just like a schoolhouse.

You walk into it and look around and you ask: Where is the spent fuel?

They say: You are standing on it.

What?

It is right there. It is encased and they put in solvent and put in water, glass put upon it, and they are smart enough to say that will be safe for 50 to 100 years. Guess what. They say: We will find a solution or a use for it in that period of time.

We stopped producing nuclear powerplants, one of the reasons being we don't know what to do with the waste. An engineering problem, and nothing more, has killed nuclear power in America. We have said maybe somebody would like to try it and we will give them some incentive to get around the difficulties involved. I hope we do it this way. Because if we don't, I think we can probably say, during my lifetime--I am not sure about the lifetime of the occupant of the chair, who is a very young Senator and very much waiting around to see this happen. You may see it, but I don't think I will, because you have to give some incentives to get started and then the public will see the new generation, something we ought to have going on in our country.

I could go on. Before I stop, though, I want to talk about Alaska and natural gas. First there was a program--it is not in this bill--to capture crude oil that is in ANWR. We were told: If you put it in the bill, it will be filibustered. Isn't that interesting, Senator Nickles? You weren't for taking it out; you wanted it in. Now we have left it out and we have somebody filibustering because of the MTBE hold harmless clause.

I wish we had known we were going to have cloture votes down here. Maybe we should have put it in and had cloture on a lot of things, including ANWR. But we didn't put it in, in good faith, because the minority leader said he had enough votes to kill it. So we left it out.

Alaska is loaded with energy. What do we do in this bill if we can't utilize some of their energy? We tried very hard to assure the delivery of natural gas to the lower 48 because it will not be longer than 10 years until we will be short of natural gas and we will be using it from other countries. Won't it be interesting? With a State of ours loaded with natural gas, America, which is using natural gas like it went out of style, will be importing LNG from all over the world. We will say: Here we are again. Instead of getting independent, we are getting dependent.

But we did try our best. This bill says bring it down through a certain area and bring it to Chicago. We said we will help the companies that will build it. We did what we could by way of credits and accelerated depreciation, but as of today we have no assurance that it will be done. We have hope, and at least we have done what we could, and it may happen. If you throw this bill out, that is not going to happen either. I don't know how long before you get anything going in Alaska, with the kind of fear and trepidation that happens every time you mention capturing some of their resources.

There are many other provisions in this bill. There are all kinds of great research programs. They are misunderstood because they are not paid for; they are authorized. They are saying if, in the future, Congress wants to pay for some additional research in--let's just pick one--nanotechnology, this gives them authority but doesn't pay for it. That is one. If you add it up, you will say this bill costs all these things, but it doesn't cost those things, because those are part of-- like when you fund an education bill, you fund it for a lot more than you need and later on you pay for what you can afford.

I could go through some more, but my good friend Senator Nickles wants to speak. He will be to the point. He will cite some problems with the bill, I am sure, and will also tell us some of the things that are reasonably good about it.

I am glad people have not come down here and made a lot of noise about the whistleblower protection because we did continue protection of whistleblowers, contrary to what some of their main groups are saying. They just wanted more, not continued protection. But we have continued them.

There are at least 10 other major issues we have done that I truly don't believe will get done in the near future. They are more or less moribund--that means dead--if we finish this bill by not voting for cloture and voting for the bill.

I thank the Senator for listening. To the extent there are programs in here that others have worked hard to get in here and are very proud of and I haven't mentioned, please understand I did not mention everything. I mentioned what I could. What I didn't, I am glad, in our spare time, to get on the phone and suggest to others the rest of the things that are here.

I close by saying there are a lot of ways we could have done this bill. We have been chastised, we have been ridiculed, we have been put upon because of the way we put the bill together. All I want to say to my fellow Senators is we got a bill. We tried this before. We have gone through a year, year and a half and got nothing. I started this with the idea we would get a bill and it would be reasonably close to what we would have gotten had we spent much more time collaboratively with many more scriveners, many more writers, than we had. I think that is the case. Most people who were interested saw the product long before it came to the floor.

You notice I did not mention electricity reform, other than indirectly. But I will say for those who want FERC to run the entire grid, they will have that if this bill fails. For States

that think we ought to have FERC doing it, they can be gleeful.

We thought we ought to phase it in and we thought we ought to let some States provide differently for themselves, but we made sure they couldn't close out investors who wanted to come into their States and put in utilities. We didn't make it simple, but we let it happen and we let them get their money back, too.

Those are tough issues. You don't get the bill, and you might get what some people like, or you might get that chairman over there who thinks he knows how to run it all by himself. You might get that. I didn't think that is the right way to go. But I didn't have the luxury of writing four versions. We had to write one version the best we could for everybody. We did that.

I yield the floor. I thank the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will not take too long.

I wish to speak a moment to the Senator from Kentucky.

First, I say to the Senator, I chair the Energy Committee, and I am very pleased that Kentucky has contributed you to the committee. You bring to us an enthusiastic approach to America's self-sufficiency, not the gloom and doom of: We can't make it, we can't do it. You are always there saying: We ought to do it. Why don't we do it?

I am very pleased we were able to put in this new law a series of provisions that permit the Senator to come to the floor and speak with optimism about coal of the future, coal and America's future. Of course it is parochial but it is national.

The Senator's State is a coal producer but it is a part of America. Kentucky is a State in the Union. Your State does not want to go down in coal. As I understand it, you want coal to go up. You do not want ``King Coal'' dead. You want ``King Coal'' alive.

The first thing I want to do is say to the Senator, it is very interesting to see how you interpret this and how others interpret it-- that all these coal provisions are a giveaway to big business. I did not hear the Senator mention big business once, not because they are not going to be involved, but I think it is because the Senator understands you are not going to produce new, clean coal generators with nonprofit organizations.

I guess the Senator assumes, as I do, that some coal company is going to apply to the Department of Energy to do this. Is that not right, I ask the Senator?

So one can stand up and say: There must have been great lobbying from the coal companies.

Well, the coal companies did not have to lobby. All we had to do was have a brain and to know there is coal and say: Well, what are we going to do so somebody will invest money in coal, servicing our country in a bigger and better way?

If it turns out some choose to come to the floor and label that indecent lobbying by a big company, I am sorry, we could have done this if no coal company ever visited us, I assure you.

I say to the Senator, we have Senators like you who told us about it.

Absolutely. The truth is, whatever you lobbied for as a Senator, that is your privilege. Nobody could say you should not work for coal in this bill, that you ought to just abandon it, that you should not do that because that is representing an interest. Of course. Well, if there are no interests, there is nothing going on. Right? We just as well might go to sleep and forget about it.

Another thing that is interesting, we have had at least three Senators come to the floor, including my cohort from New Mexico, saying they are against electricity provisions because they wanted FERC to have more power.

Now, I did not have the luxury of making speeches about FERC. I had to write something. And here we have one Senator saying FERC should have run the whole electric system in the country. Right?

Then we have this Senator. He is over here saying: You almost went too far, where we skinnied back on FERC's power. We said it can phase in over time. Right?

You were not sure of that. If you had been writing it, and did not have anybody else pressuring you, you would have written it more in favor of your State. But, you see, I did not have the luxury of writing one for each State, one that affects you up the road.

Then there is another State--such as Pennsylvania--saying: We don't do business like they do. We want a whole different electricity provision. I heard that. I could not write one for them, too. Right?

The last time they used to write two was before the Civil War. They wrote one for the South and one for the North. But I told them: Why don't you cut it in four pieces and we will write four of them? Right? But there aren't four countries; there are just the States. So we did the best we could. I think it is a good provision.

Now, what else about it? I share with you, right now, on the electric provision that here is the study. So everybody can see it--it is the first time it has been on the floor of the Senate. It is entitled ``Interim Report: The Causes of the August 14th Blackout in the United States and Canada.'' I do not think I will ask that it be printed in the Record. I will refer to it. We have gone through it and we have looked at what they said.

Let me say to my friend, it says that the principal reason we had a blackout was that all of the States, with their various utility systems, had what are called reliability standards.

Now, I am not a technician, but reliability means something pretty common and ordinary. I can talk reliability at home in an evening with my wife. We talk a lot about this, and she should know what that is. Reliability standards means that you appropriately and prudently load your electric wires so they are not so overloaded that something happens, or that they are clean and they do not have things imposing upon their reliability.

This said it was nothing dramatic. It was not that we have an old, wornout system. Somebody said we had a Third World system. No, no, we do not. We have a first world system, not a third

world system. When we have a blackout, it is big news. That is because we have a first-rate system. You know the third-rate systems nobody cares about because they are not working anyway.

So the truth is, this little report says the biggest reason it went out was reliability.

Well, guess what. For all the things we did so wrong in this bill, one of the principal things we provided was mandatory reliability standards. No more cheating, fudging, hiding a little, and overloading the lines during heavy use, and saying: Well, nobody will do anything-- except when it blows out. Then we all find out.

So I say to everybody, we did the report. You wondered what happened. You got the study. You got a bill. The bill says, if you pass this bill, it is fixed. Right?

Contrary-wise, do what some have suggested, throw the bill out, and you are right back where we were. You are right back where we were. You can sit around and wait for a blackout, just playing with your hands, worrying, sweating, saying: When will it occur?

At least this bill says we know why it occurred, and we are not going to let it occur again. The Feds are going to fine anybody who is lazy and loafs around and doesn't clean up the lines. In fact, the report is pretty good that they are going to be on them to get the trees off the lines. That would be good news; we don't have to go out there line by line. But that is part of the reliability.

The point I make is, for every issue people have raised on the floor that this bill doesn't do or fails to do, on the other hand it does and it doesn't fail to. Every time people say ``we don't like it because,'' there is something in it to say, ``but we do like it because.'' I regret that it can't be every single Senator taking the floor and saying: Everything in it is precisely what I want.

I am glad we have people such as the Senator from Kentucky who knows that can't happen.

I yield the floor.

Under the order, the distinguished Senator from Texas is next; is that correct?

She has been waiting. I assume she asks she be next. Will the Senator let me use 5 minutes before she proceeds?

Mr. President, I want to take 5 minutes on the issue my good friend from Illinois raised here today. Has anybody thought how in the world there would be MTBE being used in all these different parts of the United States even today, even today? Has anybody wondered why it is still being used? Because it is still valid according to the laws of our land, and it is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. This MTBE product was produced because the U.S. Government sought an additive to be applied to gasoline so it would be cleaner than gasoline without it.

I want to assure everybody in this country. The Senator makes it sound as if the product is an illegal product. If he doesn't, then I would sure say, if per se this product is this dangerous, it ought to be banned. But isn't it interesting?

He could say it should be, but the truth is, it is not. It has not been, and there has only been a little ripple of talking around here about perhaps shutting it down.

Why has there been none? Why is the Environmental Protection Agency, not just this one, the one in the Clinton and the one before that--why did they not do something about it? The reason is there is nothing wrong with the product. The product is being used. If it is used right, it is a good product. We are going to do better when we do ethanol.

But the good Senator from Illinois--I don't know how many times he will come back to the floor, how many times the Senator from Illinois will return to the floor to speak about MTBE. But his State is the second largest producer of corn in America, and the reason he is down here talking about MTBE is because he is scared of his farmers because he is not going to vote for the thing they want more than anything else--ethanol. That is what they want. He has been working on it. I have been working on it. Everybody has been working on it. And this Senator has decided, the Senator who just spoke, from Illinois, decided he would rather defend the trial lawyers who want to go after the companies that produce MTBE.

I also assure you that the language in this bill does not say that anybody is immune from liability. It merely says you can't sue the producer of the product just because they produced the product.

What is happening is it is being used improperly. When it is used improperly, it is producing all these ill effects across the country.

Does that mean we sue the people who produced it? I repeat, it is a legal product that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The United States of America approved it and now it is being used but people don't use it right. Underground tanks leak and it leaks into the water system. Does that mean the company 2,000 miles away that manufactured the product should be responsible to clean up those water systems? Of course not.

But I guarantee they are chomping at the bit to do it--do what? Not to sue the people whose tanks leaked because they are not fat enough. They are chomping to sue the big oil company that manufactured it for the last 20 years.

Now I want to read the statute. The statute says: No product shall be deemed defective--

if it does not violate a control or prohibition imposed by

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

(hereinafter referred to as the ``Administrator'') under

section 211 of such Act, and the manufacturer is in

compliance with all requests for information under subsection

(b) of such section 211 of such Act. . . . If the safe harbor

provided by this section does not apply, the existence of a

claim of defective product shall be determined under

otherwise applicable law. Nothing in this subsection shall be

construed to affect the liability of any person for

environmental remediation costs--

Clean up the water, sewer systems and water systems.

It says:

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the

liability of any person for environmental remediation costs,

drinking water contamination, negligence for spills or other

reasonably foreseeable events, public or private nuisance,

trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, or any

other liability other than liability based upon a claim of

defective product.

Frankly, there is no defective product. You can go on saying where it is all over America and that is because it is legal to use it. But it is not legal to abuse it. When people abuse it, should we really, as a nation, say the people who manufactured it are liable for all the consequences? I think not. That is all we did in this legislation.

If the distinguished Senator is so worried about this, I suggest he ought to vote for this bill and take care of the ethanol producers in his State and other States. He may be the deciding vote that decides we are not going to have ethanol. I wouldn't like to be in that position, I tell you, not on a weak proposition that the reason I did it was to protect the big lawyers who want to file these lawsuits. I say to all of them: File your lawsuits. When this thing is over with, file your lawsuits. It is just that you will not be able to sue the company that made the product which is legal and allowed. You can sue anybody else who caused the damage.

It is like somebody who drinks some soup in a restaurant and somebody in the restaurant, instead of putting soup in the bowl, they put some poison in it. You drank it and got sick.

Do you sue Campbell's Soup Company for producing the soup or do you go look for the people who put the poison in it?

The truth is, maybe we would all like to see MTBE go away. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we should deny the passage of an Energy bill and ethanol for the farmers of this country, a great, giant substitute for the crude oil that we are going to use; whether we are going to do that or not.

If we are not, we surely ought not do it based upon the excuse that a valid product licensed by the United States improperly used is causing damage to people and we don't want to let them sue the people who produced the product but let them sue anybody else--the leaking tank owner, the distributor who distributed it wrongly, or anybody else who caused this--just because you made a legal product and somebody got hurt later on down the line, go back and sue the company that made it legally, validly, under what one might say is almost a license from the Federal Government.

I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 3 p.m., in closed session, to receive a briefing on assessment of the current situation in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 20, 2003, at 10 a.m., to conduct a vote on the nomination of Ms. Alicia R. Castaneda, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board; the nomination of Mr. Thomas J. Curry, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and S. 1531, the ``Chief Justice John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act.''

Following the votes, the committee will conduct a hearing on ``Improving the Corporate Governance of the New York Stock Exchange.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on Drug Importation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at a time and location to be determined to hold a business meeting to consider the nominations of James M. Loy to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security; and Scott J. Bloch to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Keeping the Lights on: The Federal Role in Managing the Nation's Electricity, Part Two.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``U.S. Tax Shelter Industry: The Role of Accountants, Lawyers and Financial Professionals.''

Mr. President, 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 want to first say to the Senate, a little over a year ago the Senate changed committees and I had the luxury of moving from the Budget Committee to the Energy Committee-- perhaps not a luxury in everyone's sense but from my standpoint it was, indeed, a great opportunity and a tremendous change for me. I took that opportunity with a great deal of relish and enthusiasm and decided I would do the very best I could to produce an energy policy, broad based, for this country.

The House agreed on that conference report yesterday by an overwhelming vote. That means that one body has looked at that conference report and, with bipartisan support, said this is a good policy for the United States to follow in the future, and it will do good things for our people and for our growth and development.

The United States of America spends annually $440 billion, roughly-- and that is on the low side--on energy. That energy is the underpinning of our economy and is a principal component of our quality of life. For most Americans, the complex system of energy production and distribution is something they take for granted. When they turn on the lights every morning, they give absolutely no thought to the turbines powered by coal, gas, oil, hydropower, or nuclear power spinning around to produce that electricity. Only during hurricanes or blackouts are they reminded of how complex the system of transmission lines is that brings that power to their homes and to their businesses sometimes across many States.

Americans almost never give a thought to the fact that beyond the complex physical system that produces and generates our energy is a massively complex system of rules and regulations. These rules and regulations govern, one, who pays for power and who pays for the powerplants and transmission lines; two, how the emission from the plants is regulated; three, who can own them; four, how the fuels can be shipped; and five, what costs can be charged and to whom.

Some of my colleagues are critical of this legislation. Who would not expect that to be? This bill is put together by the House and the Senate, each with different ideas about what they think is the best way to solve our problems, if we can. Clearly, each body has strong feelings about certain issues that they match up when we attempt to move ahead in some positive direction.

Some will get up here in the next couple of days and argue about some of the provisions in this bill. I say right now to the Senate and to the American people, some of the provisions that will be argued I agree with. Some of the provisions I don't agree with; that is, some that people suggest should be changed in this bill. But I remind everyone that we didn't get to this point without giving and taking, without putting and taking back, without arguing one way and then not winning it and having to go the other way. I suggest that everybody in this body knows--and if they don't right now, they will soon--that across this land there are millions of farmers, who farm all kinds of products, who are either up here on the Hill or on the telephones talking about passing this bill because it has a giant provision to convert corn and related products of our country over time to ethanol which will, in turn, be used in our automobiles in lieu of gasoline that comes from crude oil.

We in the Senate, I say to my good friend, were led in those negotiations for ethanol by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He has been a staunch advocate, along with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, for a major American ethanol program. I can tell my colleagues that in negotiating with the House, they weren't as excited about the program, the project, or the size as we were under the leadership of Senator Grassley. So to get what we wanted, we had to ask them what they wanted. They didn't wait around for us to ask. That is sort of a way of saying it. They told us what they needed. In other words, they said: You want that, we want something.

I will tell my colleagues shortly of the numerous provisions they wanted that are in this bill that brought us forth today with the most significant program for farmers and the production of ethanol to take the place of crude oil that we have ever had in this country.

Let me proceed with my original thoughts and then move over to the subject matter which has brought a number of people into a state of opposition to this bill. Let me complete a few thoughts.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost $26 billion over 10 years. Some people have much bigger numbers, but what they are talking about in those numbers is not where we have obligated the expenditure of funds. They are authorized. They are to be funded, if ever, later. They are statements of policy, but not statements of policy accompanied by programs that must be paid for.

What I am talking about is $26 billion that has to do with the taxes that are included in this bill. That averages $2.6 billion a year. People can talk about

how much we are spending and who we are giving it to, and I remind them one more time, America at work, day by day, spends about $440 billion annually on electricity. We, who were charged in our committee with making things better for the future, said let's have some production tax credits and the like to bring on more energy and cause more alternatives. If we took that number of $2.6 billion per year on average, and then figure that up against $440 billion a year, it would seem to me that some might say: You didn't do enough; you can't move this system with that little tiny bit of money.

I will, before we are finished, calculate this over 10 years. I will take $440 billion times 10 and then the little bit we are spending, and the number will then be such a tiny number that people will wonder whether we can really get much done. I think we can.

In exchange for that investment of about one-half of 1 percent, in summary, for there is time to go into detail, we will diversify our resources of electricity to build new, clean coal-burning powerplants, solar facilities, relicense our hydropower, and build new geothermal plants and, yes, perhaps build some nuclear powerplants.

For the same one-half of 1 percent, we will impose mandatory reliability standards on our transmission systems to ensure that blackouts, such as the one in August, will not occur again.

This legislation will also streamline the permitting process for oil and gas production on Federal lands. I want to be clear that this legislation does not change the standards. We are not reducing the requirements to produce energy on Federal properties, but we require Federal agencies to coordinate so that the regulatory process is more straightforward. I would think anybody would expect that of us in these days when we have shortages and when we have resources of our own.

This bill did not shy away from controversy. Some of the most difficult issues we faced were the regional differences on how to regulate electricity generation and transmission. This Nation is divided on the issue. If they are not divided, it is because they don't know the issue. But if they knew the issue, they would be divided, and that is unavoidable.

As I have said before, if I could have written four different laws, cutting our country into four pieces, we could have provided each region of the country its own set of laws. But we cannot do that.

There is one America, not four. We were asked to write a reform of the Federal Power Act for the whole country. So without the luxury of doing it in pieces, we think we have achieved a fair middle ground.

In exchange for compromise, all market participants can now conduct their business understanding what rules and regulations will be applicable. I believe that certainty will allow new capital to enter the electricity transmission business and encourage new construction and thereby create a more reliable transmission grid.

In some cases, I wish we could have done more. I think it is known that I support the opening of ANWR. I wish we could have had it in here, but we know the bill could not have passed with it. In addition, I wish we could have inventoried the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, just to know what we own, but the House would not hear of that either. However, to the extent possible, the conference report avoids those two issues and issues of that type.

There are some issues this conference report contains that concern my colleagues, and I have heard much about them already. I want to take a visit to one of those.

First, there is an issue that is called MTBE. Those provisions were not in the Senate bill but the House was adamant about the provision. Similarly, the House insisted on an amendment called the bump-up provision. They made a case and then they voted again on that case on the floor of the House and repeated their support of it overwhelmingly. In due course, if we want a discussion of it, we can have it.

While these provisions are controversial, I am convinced the policy behind them is sound, and I will discuss them in detail as we debate each provision.

This bill is not just about producing energy. To the extent we can, we try to save energy. Some wish we could have done something more radical, such as imposing very high CAFE standards for automobiles. That continues to come up when we are asked how much gasoline are we going to save and how much oil will we import, how much will that be reduced.

I say, we will do whatever the Senate and/or the House would vote for, and everybody knows they will not vote for changes in the existing law with reference to automobiles. That is not a question of copping out, it is a question of taking the vote and finding there are not the votes.

So for those who would like to say we should have done something in that area, I think it is fair to say they either know something none of us knows about--they have a secret weapon to get the votes--or they are just making a statement to make this effort look less effective.

We know neither the House nor the Senate has the will to modify the CAFE standards to any significant degree. We have done everything else we could do short of that. I am a pragmatist, but I believe this bill will indicate we will go only so far and then we have to draw a line and say that is as far as we will go.

We did what was politically feasible. We increase efficiency standards for appliances, Federal buildings, and we provide tax incentives to use fuel-efficient cars and to build energy-efficient buildings. Many of these are not new and have been espoused by others before me as part of an energy program, including many of them by Senator Bingaman heretofore.

This bill is an investment. It will pay off in affordable, reliable energy that will underpin our economy. It will pay through savings we are going to enjoy from increased energy efficiency, and this bill is one-half of 1 percent investment in our economy and our future. I think it is worth it. There is no doubt in my mind that if we do this, the country will be much safer, much better off in the years to come. After all, if one takes on a job such as this, they can end up saying they at least have done that. Much more cannot be asked for.

I wish to comment on MTBE. MTBE was a product authorized by the United States of America years ago to be used in the process of oxidation in this country. It was an acceptable product to be used in a regulated manner. Many companies did that. Some companies did not use it correctly and may have violated rules, may have been negligent, may have thrown it around, may have spilled it where it should not be, but the House had in mind--and we had no alternative but to agree in order to get the rest of this bill--that for those companies that produced a valid, legal product and used it validly and legally, they should not be liable if there are damages that are forthcoming.

I might say to the Chair and all Senators, the same thing is going to apply to ethanol.

Now, going back to MTBE, it is a prescribed product. The U.S. Government prescribed it and authorized it. This bill says if it is used improperly, the companies are liable. If it is used properly, this says lawsuits do not lie for damages.

I have heard many Senators come to the floor and abhor lawsuits that seek damages from companies for products they produced that were legal and valid but some damage occurred to somebody through no fault of the product, of the production of the product or its proper use. I have heard Senators on my side of the aisle say it is time we stop those kinds of suits; those are lawyers just trying to attack, sue, and gain big settlements. In this case, we decided that for using the product improperly, lawsuits can maintain; for using it properly, lawsuits cannot be maintained.

I am very sorry there are Senators in this room whose States either were or are ready to file lawsuits claiming damages. There is surely nothing new about that, for I am sure, just as sure as I am standing here, that if this does not become law, there will be hundreds of them filed across this land. I do not think they are justified under the theory I have expressed and the theory the House expressed to us. Nonetheless, it is probably one of the most contentious issues in this bill.

I suggest that it seems to this Senator we ought to look at the overall bill. The overall bill--I cannot do justice to it in 8 minutes, but I can tell

you one more time, in summary--will make America stronger, will minimize our dependence upon foreign products, in particular should make us less and less dependent upon the potential of foreign natural gas being needed in this great economy. We are moving rapidly in that direction.

The last 15 powerplants in America were built with natural gas. If we build 15 or 20 more, just as certain as I am standing here, we will be importing gas from overseas. So we will just get out of the muddle of importing crude oil and we will have sat by and watched ourselves get back into the middle of importing natural gas.

We have done everything we can, that we could come up with, that we could understand, that we could be informed on, that says America is going to produce as much natural gas as possible. As a matter of fact, things indeed could work out under this bill where Alaska--not ANWR but Alaska--could be selling natural gas to the lower 48 in large quantities.

We have given some tax credits to companies that would do that. We are all hopeful that before too much time passes they will agree to get started.

In addition, we have said there is a great deal of natural gas that lies off the shores of America in valid, not prohibited areas, very deep. We have said: Why isn't it getting produced? It is gas; we can use it; it is ours.

The issue was it was too expensive. We chose in this bill to do what everybody on this conference overwhelmingly supported and that was to substantially reduce the royalty payments so as to make that abundant natural gas available. We believe with the passage of this bill they will be out there drilling for that, adding it to America's reserves, quickly.

There are many more issues like that. I regret we could not produce a bill that would alter the current makeup of the use of fuel in America to produce energy and electricity without some stimulating and some production tax credits that would go to the industries that were not currently involved in producing energy for the American mix.

Incidentally, in that regard, we produced a tax credit for wind and solar energy the likes of which will yield wind energy for America in abundance. I ran into a gentleman yesterday whose company produces windmills and wind energy for America. He thanked me for this bill. I don't know him. I didn't know him. I met him right there. He said he was visiting with a few Senators just to make sure they understood that with this bill wind and solar energy will continue as they are but will strive to move ahead exponentially.

He said: I currently produce more wind energy than anyone, and we will be able to double and triple it with this bill because there is a good credit that is going to continue under this bill.

Incidentally, for those who want that, you should know if this bill doesn't pass, that tax credit is gone. You can wish all you want about wind energy, if that is what you like, but by not passing this bill you will have wished that away. It will not be part of any mix for the future.

In my judgment, when you add up all those pluses and you take all the negatives that are going to be spoken of here, you have a bill that deserves the U.S. Senate follow suit with the House and approve this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very glad I was present today to hear the speech of the distinguished Senator from Illinois so that immediately after it I might speak a few words.

First, for everybody in this Chamber who wants ethanol--now, I am making the point very clear that I am not talking about whether ethanol is the greatest, whether ethanol is the least, or whether ethanol is the best thing in the world. I am just addressing the millions of people in this country, most of them farmers, many thousands in the State of the occupant of the chair, who would like to see ethanol, since it would do great things for them and at the same time diminish our demands on gasoline from crude oil. Now I am speaking to them.

Whatever has been said by the good Senator from Illinois, all the farmers in his State who produce corn and the other products should know there is no way to get an ethanol bill of any consequence without addressing the issue of MTBE. The way the issue has been addressed by the Senator from Illinois on MTBE is wrong, but nonetheless let us just talk about the reality of it. Do my colleagues want a major ethanol program for America? The answer is overwhelmingly yes. Then go to conference with the House like we did and say to them: We want an ethanol bill like the one that passed the Senate.

They will say: Not on your life, unless you decide to treat those who produce MTBE, a forerunner to ethanol, fairly.

We said: What does that mean?

They said: For those who have used MTBE properly, they shall not be liable for any damages that result from MTBE.

I am reminded in my home State, there was a product liability case against a company that delivers more coffee and hamburgers than any other company in the world, McDonald's. The suit was against McDonald's for delivering coffee to the front window of a car and then spilling the coffee on the lap of the purchaser. The purchaser sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot.

They did not sue Folgers Coffee for making the coffee. They sued McDonald's for delivering the coffee that was too hot. I think that most people would say that is about right. If the coffee was too hot, then let a jury decide whether they ought to be delivering coffee that is so hot. But what if they would have gone off and sued Folgers Coffee because they made the coffee that somebody used wrongly, to wit, made it too hot and burned the legs of a purchaser of hot coffee? That is exactly what is going on with MTBE.

I am not a proponent of it. I did not know anything about it until I got intimately involved in this legislation and then I found that MTBE is a product that has been authorized and prescribed by the Federal Government. It is something that is supposed to be used because the Government says you can use it and it is all right.

In response to the U.S. House insistence, all we have done is say if someone uses MTBE, as prescribed by the Federal Government, they are not liable in damages. We are very narrow. As a matter of fact, we have unquestionably said if one uses it wrong, if they negligently use it, if they spill it, if they throw it around, if they do not handle it properly and damages result, they can be sued.

I do not think that is exactly what my friend from Illinois said, but I believe that is what this legislation says. I believe that is what we did, and I believe there is no other way to do it.

Then we said in the meantime, it is going to be phased out. That is in the legislation, too, that in a certain number of years it cannot be used anymore. Even if it is used right, it is not going to be used anymore. There is something that takes its place.

Across this land, people file lawsuits in product liability cases and otherwise about many things, and we all know about it. Sometimes we look at a lawsuit and we are abhorred to think they could take such a case to court. Sometimes we think, right on, somebody really messed up and they ought to pay for it. But when the House said to us, if you want an ethanol bill, you have to look at litigation that is ensuing out there in America where MTBE producers are getting sued for a valid, appropriate product, okayed by the Federal Government, used properly, and they are getting sued for damages.

They said: We want to limit that. If it is used improperly and causes damages, the suits can go on. Then we argued and said let's get rid of it in due course, and we have language that says what date it will expire in terms of being a product that can be used.

I want to say again, so that everybody understands, the last speaker has suggested that this bill should be killed by cloture, and that is the right of the Senate on any bill. But I suggest to them if they kill this bill by cloture, which I urge that they not do, they have killed ethanol, and I do not know when it ever comes back.

As a matter of fact, if they think it is coming back without some restraint on MTBE legislation that is going rampant in this country, of the type I have described, suing Folgers Coffee because somebody spilled hot coffee on them, that kind of analogy, for those who think that is going to continue on, then they have given up and abandoned forever ethanol. If that is what they would like, then follow the directions and the wishes of the Senator from Illinois who has plenty of farmers who are waiting and wondering what is going to happen to this bill because of what they think is going to be fair treatment, creating a new market over the next decade and the next decade after that for a product that has been on a roller coaster for farmers who have been on a roller coaster.

Having said that, I want to talk to another group of people. Throughout the deliberation on this bill, I have not heard more from any group of Americans and any group of Senators than the group concerned about the issues of wind energy, solar energy, biomass, and related energies. Everybody came to us, day by day, as we put this bill together and said: Senator, you know wind energy is working. You are not going to kill it in this bill, are you? Senator, bioenergy is right on the edge, ready to go. All these different energies are ready to go. In the case of wind energy, it is not only ready to go, it is going. It is beginning to show up because it is working so well.

Let me say to my friend, it is gone; wind energy is finished when you kill this bill. It is gone.

You might say: How can that be? It is moving along right now. In fact, over in Massachusetts they wanted to build some out there and some people didn't want them building them out there in the ocean. I don't know which people around but some. How come? It was being built.

Yes, but existing today is a great big credit, tax credit for solar and for wind. Guess what. It expires very shortly. It is gone, out the window. The people who are building wind in America are up here in the halls, knocking on our doors, and saying: Do you really want to kill wind energy in America?

The answer is: Oh, no, I just don't like the MTBE portion of this bill. But I don't want to kill wind. I want to carve it out and save it.

But you know what, people who want wind, you can't do it that way. Do you think we are going to start over next month writing another bill of this nature because this one was dead on a side issue of the type I have been describing, and we don't have any credit for wind, we don't have any credit for solar? Not on your life. In fact, I don't know when we would get around to it.

We can look back to the day after tomorrow or the day after that and say: There it went. There she blew, like they say out in the ocean. There she blew, right out the window with those who decided they wanted to talk this bill to death.

Then you look around and there are people saying, another group around here, a lot of eastern Senators walking up and saying: What is going to happen to coal? We have a lot of coal and nobody uses it. Can't you do something about that in the Energy bill?

We say we have. We have given as good a credit for research and production of clean coal technology in America as has ever existed. It is in this bill.

In fact, I had one Senator yesterday from the East, somebody trying to

make this an East versus West bill. I don't know how they did that, either. This Senator said: I was wondering what was in this bill for my State--being an Eastern State, a big coal State. He said: I found out that it has the finest set of credits for companies to try to use this great asset called coal that could ever be put in a bill. All of that within this total cost of $2.6 billion a year, on average, over 10 years.

That Senator said: I am voting for it. We have to give coal a shot in my State, said that Senator.

We can go on and on and talk about this. But it is much easier to pick a piece of the bill such as MTBE and state the facts wrong and tell everybody they should not vote for this because of MTBE. But I follow by saying the MTBE situation is not what has been said, and before you decide to kill the bill on MTBE, you ought to remember you don't kill this bill in pieces.

So everybody out there will know who has an interest: You don't kill this bill in pieces. You adopt it all or none.

For those who think MTBE is of that importance as I have explained it here today--and we will be glad to meet privately with any experts around who want to look at it--but if anybody thinks MTBE is of such a proportionate disadvantage to America that we ought to kill the future of windmills and solar energy and we ought to decide we are not going to do any of these other technologies that will develop America's energy base, they are all going out the window.

This Senator thinks in the end the Senators who are looking at the pluses and minuses of this bill may sit back in their chair and say, you know, I might have done it differently. No, Senator Bingaman said, maybe he could have done better if he had more time. Yes, maybe they should have given the Democrats more time in the committee. But that same Senator may say: Didn't we do that last year? Didn't we give them all the time in the world and what did they do? Nothing. So we produced something this year.

I will take full credit and full blame that I couldn't figure out how to do this with a regular, day-by-day markup of a bill of this magnitude with input from all sides, and I thought we should have input in a different way. We have established input from the minority party in a different way, there is no question. They got e-mails and portions of this bill as it was produced. They had meetings when they offered amendments. Some were adopted. The last 30 percent of the bill was delivered to them at the end, for them to look at, and they got the message for almost all the amendments were on those things that had to do with electricity and the like. They just didn't win any of them, which usually happens in a conference.

Conferences are usually dominated by the majority party. That is history. That is tradition or whatever you want to call it around here. Many of the early provisions of this bill are provisions that were adopted last year as part of the bill when Senator Bingaman was chairman. But we didn't get a bill.

I decided we were going to get a bill. We worked, and worked as hard as people can work, to put one together, and, frankly, you can go through it and find provisions taken all by themselves and say it doesn't have much to do with energy. But I tell you, you can't go through the whole bill and say it doesn't have a lot to do with America's energy future. In fact, I believe we will see the biggest change in agricultural America in modern history with this bill.

Some will say that is not what the bill is for. The bill is for that if, in fact, in doing that we are producing gasoline for automobiles. It is not bad to get the two for one.

Second, this bill is going to produce alternate activities to get natural gas in abundance, and it is also going to produce just about every stitch of natural gas we can produce as a nation without doing damage to our environment, and that will be used by America for American purposes.

I wish we could do more. I wish we could have done more with Alaskan resources. But you know what, everybody knows, you get one thing and you lose something. You move ahead on one and somebody thinks it is the wrong thing and you take two steps backwards.

To get this bill, well over 1,200 pages, on all the subjects we have done, and get it together and get it here this far and get it through the House yesterday by a majority vote of more than 60, a 60-vote plurality or thereabouts, is pretty good.

I am very sorry it is hung up here in the Senate. I will repeat, I have heard quietly--not openly--that some say this is a bill that is for regions of the country. I can't find it. If they would stand up here and say this bill favors the East or the West and show me how, I would be more than glad to go out and look, listen, and try to explain why it isn't. If MTBE, as I have explained, is an East versus the West issue, then I would assume there is no litigation or potential litigation on product liability in nature from the West. I don't think that is the case. If it has to do with resources, we have tried to produce the basic resource that is good for America's future, wherever it lies--whether it is the coal of Pennsylvania or the coal of Wyoming. We have tried to build under it incentives that will make it used more rather than less. We have done that.

In the next few days, we will hear a lot more. Most of it will be about the issues of which I am speaking.

I want to repeat, for those who want ethanol and want it bad and have been waiting 6 or 7 years for it and want a real bill for it, we have exactly what is necessary. That took 4 weeks of debate and frustration galore, but we got what the Senate said we should get. Yes, you can throw it all away because we had to take MTBE, as I have explained, with it. Those lawyers who like MTBE like to tell it one way. I tell it my way because I think my way is right. The lawyers' way probably would be if you were using Folgers Coffee at MacDonald's and coffee was spilled on someone's lap, you ought to be able to sue Folgers Coffee. But if you put in legislation you can't sue Folgers, then I don't think they can come to the Senate floor and argue the way they are arguing about MTBE because Folgers didn't make it hot and spill it. Neither did MTBE get spilled around where it shouldn't be, or used unpropitiously or contrary to the Federal Government standards.

Everywhere you look, there is a smattering of Senators for whom I have great respect who would like to see a nuclear powerplant built one of these days. You can throw them away if you kill this bill. They won't be built. If you pass the bill, there will be a chance there will be one following every law and every rule in the books. We might get one or two. I think that is pretty good.

I am prepared, as are a number of Senators who worked with me, to return to answer as other Senators bring this issue up.

I thank the group that helped work on this bill. They were a mighty group of seven who worked as Senators on our side of the aisle. I thank each and every one of them. They had to learn an awful lot, make a whole bunch of hard votes, and make some very close decisions. Now we are here. I hope we go beyond it and get the bill passed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not--I ask how you might work this in your schedule. We have been told for some time that Senator McCain would like to speak.

He may be around at 2:30 or 2:45. That might work it out perfectly.

Mr. President, I have been waiting to speak. I didn't understand what happened.

After that, are we finished?

Mr. President, Senator McCain is on the list we made as the next speaker.

I ask if I could speak for about 2 minutes before Senator McCain. He has indicated yes.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, my good friend from the State of Washington went through a series of newspapers and read what newspapers had to say. I will not do that. But I suggest that she and other Senators, instead of reading what the newspapers have to say, read what their constituents have to say.

I want to cite some constituents of hers and of everyone else in the Senate and what they have had to say. The Solar Industry of America applauds this. They are the largest group of American businessmen involved in development of solar energy. They sent a letter in full support, along with the National Hydropower, American Coalition for Ethanol, Renewable Fuels, National Biodiesel Board, American Soybean Board, North American Electric Reliability Council. While we are on that one, let me suggest that the board that looked at the blackout we had in the Northeast and just issued a report. I will talk about it later.

Most interestingly, the biggest thing they found that caused that blackout was the violation of reliability standards. Those standards are in this legislation. That will not happen again. The study group says we have taken care of them in this legislation. Do not forget, if we do not pass this, they are out the window. Who knows when we will get back to them.

The National Rural Electric Coops of America, a letter of full support; the Large Public Power Council; the APPA, the American Public Power Association; Coalition for Renewable Fuel Standards--totally in support. I have a multi-industry letter in support of this bill from Interstate Natural Gas, National Association of Manufacturers, Ocean Industries, National Corn Growers, North American Manufacturers Association, Edison Electric Institute, and Domestic Petroleum Council.

Some day before the debate is over I will finish reading the names of groups supporting the bill. The point I make, it is one thing for the editors of our newspapers to write about a bill, it is another for the thousands and thousands of businessmen, large and small, who are going to benefit from this, to be writing what they think about the bill. Remember, most of the things they are talking about are not in the law now. Throw away this bill and we have thrown away the things they say are necessary for their continued operation in the United States.

The biggest and most important is the wind industry in America, large and small, that produces wind energy for the United States. It is a growing new industry. Listen clearly: It is growing because it has a subsidy. For those who do not like subsidies, we can cut it off and there will be no more wind energy produced for who knows how long, maybe 10 years. Maybe that is what some would like. Without this bill, the current production credit for wind energy is gone. This bill starts it and continues it. It will be gone. It will not be there.

We can talk a lot about special interests, about where the money is going, where the $2.6 billion a year is going over the next 10 years. We have an American energy use of $450 billion a year. We are trying to move it around the edges. It does not seem to this Senator to be an exorbitant amount of money or an exorbitant effort to produce a variety of energies, diversity of source, and diversity of base so we are not totally dependent again on a source such as natural gas, soon dependent on it from overseas.

Overall, there are problems with the bill, yes; problems we had to concede, yes. But overall, it is a bill that will work.

I will answer MTBE concerns at least once a day, but I don't think two or three times a day. I have done it once. I will ask other Senators who are familiar with the subject, including the Senator in the chair, to answer these concerns. Suffice it to say, some of the descriptions about MTBE in this bill are wrong.

I have given my best shot at it, but I will close with a very simple example. If you use Folgers Coffee and produce hot water that is too hot, you sell it and burn somebody with the coffee, I doubt very much if you will sue Folgers Coffee. That is the issue of MTBE. It is a legitimate, valid product, certified by the United States of America to be used. For those who use it right, we have said they will not be liable. For those who use it wrong, and there are many who have, they will remain liable. In 15 years there will no longer be any more of that.

I say to the corn growers, we have the same issue looming over us on alcohol and ethanol. We have said there, too, the product is not liable; using it improperly does create liability.

I yield the floor.

No, I think I will wait.

That is what I thought I said.

Ten minutes.

Could we substitute Senator Inhofe for me and my 10 minutes and I will come later?

Will the Senator yield before he yields the floor?

Mr. President, I have on my right a diagram. I wish it were bigger, but I think the Senator from North Dakota can see it.

The Senator spoke about midway through his speech about our growing dependence, and one of the dependencies he spoke of was natural gas. It is almost incredible--we should show the American people this diagram for them to see what has been happening to their country--the red or pink is the annual use of natural gas in our generating capacity for electricity. If we look back to 1990, the pink is hardly a little sliver, and go out to 2003 and we see that almost the entire generating capacity of the country is natural gas.

As the Senator from North Dakota has so eloquently stated this afternoon, it is clear we can't continue down that path. We have to do something about it.

First, I will take whatever criticism he has lodged today with reference to how the bill evolved. I guess it is pretty fair to say that very few people get the luxury, privilege--or whatever it is--of having to write one from beginning to end and get it to the floor. I was given that privilege this year. It could have been done a different way, some of which the Senator from North Dakota has suggested. For that I thank him, and I hope we will do better if we have a chance again.

I also think that his genuine interest in hydrogen as a fuel is not going to go unnoticed. He is right out there ahead of everybody, and he is right.

Some people stand up and tell us: Why don't you change the CAFE standards and reduce dramatically the fuel use of each car that Americans drive? I don't know how the Senator from North Dakota feels about it, but I have been at it long enough to know that the Senate will not do it and the House will not do it. The question is to find another way to do it.

I think Senator Dorgan's notion of having to use another fuel is the appropriate one to be putting our resources, our energy, and our enthusiasm behind with our major researchers and our major companies. If what we got in here is not sufficient, I will join Senator Dorgan as soon as we can and try to put in more.

I would like to see what they do with some of the agreements that are advocated for the use of this money and how we use our technology to heat up that hydrogen so it is usable. I am sure Senator Dorgan would like to see that happen soon, too.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his words. Whether they be words that agree with me or words that disagree, I think his conclusion is the one that a vast majority of Senators should make, that we should not throw this package away. We should do it. I know one of his interests is ethanol, and I don't say this just because it happens to be a big interest of his, but there is no question that part of the bill that was hardest to get, and it took the longest and it made most of us frustrated was how do we get that maximum ethanol issue quantity that he described today. It was nigh unto impossible to get the numbers out of the House and out of their writing committees, but we did. We do not get any of these provisions, I regret to say, unilaterally, unscathed, with no commitments of any kind extracted. I am just hopeful that the good outweighs the bad in terms of the compromises we made to get us there.

In my State and Senator Dorgan's State and adjoining States, there are thousands of people who see this bill a little differently than some of those who don't care about ethanol. I heard a Senator say that wouldn't be part of a bill because he didn't think we even should do it, but I don't think that is the Senator's people. I don't think it is the thousands of people represented by these letters of support.

Second, the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right on renewable resources. We are beginning to make a big show as Americans-- solar, wind is beginning to kick up its heels. We have a very powerful tax incentive in this bill. If this bill doesn't pass, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, I don't know what happens to the fast start and the moving along of these technologies. I am not sure.

I have been told by the biggest manufacturers and those who sell this energy that it will stop. Windmills will stop turning within 3 or 4 months because the tax credit will disappear. I don't want that to happen, especially since we are making some very big headway.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I bring to the floor the Energy and Water Development Appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004, approved by the conference committee last week.

My ranking member, Senator Reid, and I have worked very hard this year to put together a fair conference report under extremely difficult circumstances.

For fiscal year 2004, the allocation to the conference committee was $27.3 billion, an amount that is only $381.8 million over the President's request. This situation posed a daunting challenge to the conference, both in terms of funding and philosophy.

As many of my colleagues know, the President's request dramatically cut water projects well below the current year level. In fact, the President's request was $530 million below the current year level for water projects, and we received an increased allocation smaller than what we considered the total need of our conference report.

Thus, the increased allocation, along with other funding adjustments, was

spread generally as follows: An additional $377 million to corps water projects; an additional $70 million to Bureau of Reclamation water projects; an additional $70 million to the independent regional commissions, which were badly cut in the request, like the Appalachian Regional Commission, Denali Regional Commission, and Delta Regional Commission; and we held the Department of Energy at basically the President's request level with adjustments to areas where the conference felt the program growth was too rapid, relative to other agencies under our jurisdiction.

I believe, and I think Senator Reid would agree with me, that this was the fairest way to distribute the very limited resources available to the Committee.

I will now highlight a few of the key areas of the conference report.

The conference report provides $4.57 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, that is $377 million above the President's request, but $120 million below the current year level. We have included limited new construction projects and have focused our resources on restoring the cuts to existing construction projects.

For the Bureau of Reclamation and related activities, the conference report provides $990 million, which is $70 million above the President's request, and $15 million above the current year level.

For nuclear weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, the conference report provides $6.27 billion, which is $105 million over the President's request, and $360 million over the current year level. The budget increases are consistent with a major Defense Department initiative to restore our nuclear weapons complex.

For nuclear non proliferation activities, the conference report provides $1.37 billion, which is the same as the President's request and $12 million above the current year level. The conference continues its leadership role on countering nuclear terrorism. This budget request, coupled with the $148 million added in last year's supplemental, gives a strong boost to these highly important programs.

For environmental clean-up of Department of Energy sites, the conference report provides $7.6 billion, which is $62 million below the President's request and $238 million above the current year level. For the first time in many years, the conference was not required to add huge additional amounts to maintain clean-up budgets around the country.

For the Yucca Mountain project, the Senate conference report provides $580 million, which is $11 million below the President's request and funding for this project, as many of my colleagues know, it was a major point of contention in the conference with the House. This is a very important matter to many members of the Senate, each for various reasons.

For renewable energy R&D, the conference report provides $460 million, which is $40 million above the President's request and $40 million above the current year level. The conference report fully funds the President's new hydrogen technology initiative.

For nuclear energy R&D, the conference report provides $413 million, which is $136 million above the President's request and $147 million over the comparable current year level. The members know that this is a great priority of mine, as we continue to make investments that I believe will eventually result in the construction of new commercial power reactors in the United States.

For basic science research at DOE, the conference report provides $3.47 billion, which is $150 million above the President's request and $180 million above the current year level.

This conference report provides $55 million for the Denali Commission, $66 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and $5 million for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $3 million over the President's request.

This conference report also provides a total budget of $619 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the budget request and an increase of $41 million over the current year level.

Given the overall constraints, we worked hard but were unfortunately limited to accommodating only the highest priority requests of Members wherever possible. This was a difficult conference, it I can honestly say, it was truly a conference of compromise, one which I can assure my colleagues was hard fought. In the end, I think what emerged was a conference report which reflected the priorities of both Houses.

Finally, my colleagues should be fully aware that the conference report I filed includes a provision regarding the Middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico. The provision does two things. First it prohibits the use of outer-basin water for endangered species purposes. Secondly, it establishes how the Endangered Species Act will be complied with for this river and the affected fish. This is a very important provision that has the bipartisan support in the New Mexico delegation and at the state level. Let me restate, so there is no confusion, both Governor Richardson and Senator Bingaman, my colleague, fully support the language on the silvery minnow that's contained in this conference report.

I thank my ranking member and good friend, Senator Reid. This was one of the toughest conferences he and I have been in together, but through it all, I will tell my colleagues that Senator Reid supported me every step of the way, and I thank him for that.

Also, I would like to thank his excellent staff, Drew Willison, Roger Cockrell and Nancy Olkewicz, for all the effort put forth in getting this conference report put together, without their close cooperation, this conference report would not have been possible.

I would also like to thank my former staff, Clay Sell, for all the work he did on this bill early in the year until his departure for the White House. I thank Erin McHale of my staff for all of her hard work.

Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague, Senator Bond, in a colloquy on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Section 8 program. Senator Bond, it is my understanding that the section of the bill allocating funding for the Section 8 Housing Certificate Fund includes language that allows HUD to target up to $36 million for incremental vouchers to non-elderly people with disabilities that are adversely affected by the designation of public and assisted housing as ``elderly only.'' Is this correct?

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his support on this important issue.

Mr. President, I do not have a New York Times to quote, but I think I am a lot more fortunate because I have two New Mexico papers, important papers in my State, to quote. I do not have to use them to change the subject. I will quote from a couple of our New Mexico papers on the issue of the nominations, the nominating process, and what has happened to that process in the last couple of years.

Let me first quote from our largest newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. It says in its headline: ``End Filibuster, Put Court Nominee to Vote.'' And then it says:

What the Colt revolver was on the dusty streets of the Old

West, the filibuster is on the floor of the U.S. Senate: The

great equalizer gives 41 senators the ability to bring the

chamber's business to a halt.

The tactic should be unholstered only on issues of high

principle or grave importance. Considering the issues

currently confronting Washington, the judicial nomination--

In this paper it is referring to Miguel Estrada when it says:

The judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada does not rise

above partisan wrangling. To block a vote on his appointment

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit is an abuse of the filibuster.

I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from that distinguished newspaper be printed in the Record.

This editorial continues:

Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal, for one, doesn't

need any more information about Estrada to know that in

blocking him, ``the Democratic leadership is giving voice to

its massive base of labor, civil rights, women's rights,

disability rights, environmental, gay and lesbian rights

groups.''

Oh, then this is about constituent politics.

Then there was another editorial in a New Mexico paper, the paper is a rather liberal newspaper, the Santa Fe New Mexican. The Santa Fe New Mexican editorial is entitled: ``Estrada Tosses Towel; Pyrrhic Win For Dems.''

So Senate Democrats got what they wanted--or avoided what

they didn't want: Miguel Estrada has asked President Bush to

withdraw his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. . . .

The 41-year-old Honduran immigrant, who led his law class

at Harvard, was a vastly better choice for the judiciary than

any number of Democrats who slid onto the federal bench

during the early Clinton presidency.

Now, with a GOP president and a bare Republican majority in

the Senate, the Dems still are able to stymie the appointment

of conservative judges reflecting the apparent wishes of the

American electorate: There are too few Republican senators--

or principled Democrat ones--to apply cloture to threatened

filibusters over the confirmation of Estrada and other

qualified appointees.

And it goes on to talk about various Senators and how they conducted themselves on this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Santa Fe New Mexican be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I just want to move, for a moment, to compare how certain other judges have been treated in terms of how long they had to wait while the Senate did nothing because we were in a filibuster mode in the Senate. I want to take two or three of our nominees and just go through with those who are listening the various qualifications and the like for various nominees. I will start with Miguel Estrada, and I will take three other nominees and talk about them versus Miguel Estrada.

Nominee:

Douglas H. Ginsburg: nominated by President Ronald Reagan; college, Cornell University; law school, University

of Chicago Law School; circuit court clerkship, Carl McGowan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Supreme Court clerkship, Thurgood Marshall; Federal Government service, Deputy Assistant AG.

A. Raymond Randolph: nominated by President George Bush; college, Drexel University; law school, Pennsylvania Law School; circuit court clerkship, Henry J. Friendly, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal Government service, Assistant to the Solicitor General.

Merrick B. Garland: nominated by President Bill Clinton; college, Harvard, summa cum laude; law school, Harvard Law School; circuit court clerkship, Henry J. Friendly, Second Circuit Court of appeals; Supreme Court clerkship, William J. Brennan, Jr.; Federal Government service, Special Assistant to the AG.

Now, for each of these: it took 15 days for one of them, 66 days for one of them, and 71 days for the third.

Then we come to Miguel Estrada: nominated President George W. Bush; college, Columbia, magna cum laude; law school, Harvard Law School, magna cum laude; circuit court clerkship, Amalya Kearse, Second Circuit Court of Appeals; Supreme Court clerkship, Anthony Kennedy; Federal Government service, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Assistant Solicitor General. Mr. President, he waited 848 days.

Obviously, Mr. President, there is no validity to the conversations coming from the other side that they have not taken qualified appointees and decided that they would apply this rule of 60 instead of 51.

Out there in America, when people look at the Senate they say when you have 51 votes, that is the way you win. With 51 votes you win; with 49 you lose--but not when it comes to judges they do not like, just plain do not like--not that they are not qualified, they just do not want them.

For some reason they have decided they are not going to let that person on, and no longer is the majoritarian rule the rule of the day. It is a supermajority. Then the time begins to run.

Miguel Estrada had to wait more than 800 days before he gave up. I have just gone through the names of three. I am not going to say the others were not qualified; they were. But certainly Miguel Estrada is as qualified as any of them are, if you look at just the paper background and the previous service and achievements prior to them coming to the floor and languishing or getting confirmed.

For none of those three are better nominees than Miguel Estrada, and everybody looking at his record and seeing what he has done and what he has not done knows that.

Now I would like to close with a last editorial, an editorial also from New Mexico. This one is from the Albuquerque Journal. This editorial speaks about the current situation when so many candidates and other Democrats in high positions are coming to our State, the State of New Mexico, to talk to the Hispanic people where we have large numbers, and to talk politics to them.

I am quoting from a September 11, 2003, editorial from the Albuquerque Journal. It says:

Democratic presidential hopefuls mouthed and sometimes

mangled Spanish words in Albuquerque last week, searching for

Hispanic votes.

Earlier that day, a Hispanic judicial nominee who wanted a

simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor withdrew after two

years of Democratic mangling of the confirmation process.

Democrats could not argue that Miguel Estrada was

unqualified to serve on the appeals court for the District of

Columbia, a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Playing catch-up after emigrating from Honduras at 17 with little English, Estrada graduated from Columbia with honors, earned a Harvard law degree and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Estrada's credentials were good enough for the Clinton administration, where he worked for five years in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office.

Though he has no paper trail of decisions as a judge, his reputation as one of the nation's finest appellate lawyers led to a unanimous American Bar Association rating of ``well qualified'' for the Supreme Court.

But ``well qualified,'' in terms of legal intellect, is not qualification enough in the U.S. Senate. There's blame enough to spread around both sides of the aisle. . . .

But Democrats have escalated the partisan warfare to the filibuster level. Estrada would have been confirmed by a simple majority, but Democrats raised the bar for this Hispanic from the wrong side of the political tracks. Estrada had to have a super majority of a Senate where Democrats toed the party line against him.

Though accustomed to adversity, Estrada finally withdrew after two years of this absurdity. His experience should not be in vain.

Democrats who take Hispanic support for granted but can't bring themselves to vote for a qualified Hispanic should learn a new word from the lips of voters: !Basta!--Enough of this purely partisan jockeying on judicial nominations.

I think, while many came to the floor and quoted the New York Times and other major newspapers, I think my two New Mexico papers have hit it on the head, the last one right where it belongs during a political campaign--come and mingle and mangle our language and our last names, and then when one is nominated, make them have the supermajority, all the time asking for their vote--paraphrasing the last editorial that I just read from the Albuquerque Journal.

I think what has happened to these nominees--in particular, the four we are speaking of, led by Miguel Estrada, and the three women--it is clear they have been politicized. They are qualified. If they would have had a chance under other Presidents at other times with their kind of qualifications, they would be serving on a higher bench in the United States without question.

They have just found themselves at a point in time when the filibuster rule is applied with such assurance that there is no harm to come to those politically or otherwise who use the instrument of filibuster against the extremely qualified.

That is exactly what has happened here. I am pleased to speak for just a few moments. I compliment all of those who have taken much time over the last day and a half to speak to the issue, specifically as to these people, and generally as to how this process used this way is ruining the political process and making good candidates--let's make it superior candidates--subject to the whim of the 60-vote rule.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program previously scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Friday, November 14 at 10 a.m. has been cancelled and will be rescheduled as soon as practicable.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Pete Lyons of the Committee staff at 202-224-5861.

subcommittee on public lands and forests

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

The hearing will be held on Friday, November 21, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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.

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for yielding me a few moments. Obviously, this is a time when it is very easy to talk about our veterans. But I thought I might just take about half of my time to tell the Senate a little story about my father.

My father came to the United States in 1908 as a 12-year-old immigrant from Italy. I don't think many of you know that in the First World War, immigrants, noncitizens, were drafted. My father was in little Albuquerque in business, 27 years old, couldn't write English, couldn't speak English too well, and he got a draft notice. Sure enough, 3 months later he went off to war, the First World War.

Another thing that is most interesting is that Armistice Day was this day, November 11; but it was also my dad's birthday. So he was a young American soldier, unable to speak very much English. He was sufficiently uncertain of his language that when he was up for promotion he didn't want to be promoted because he was afraid he couldn't drill the soldiers; he would sound funny because he had a big accent. Nonetheless, he did move up and whatever he was entitled to he got.

He remembered vividly November 11, Armistice Day--and one man in particular. I think all our veterans have a memory of some leader. His memory was of his captain, the captain of his Corps of Engineers which was building pontoon bridges and the like. The reason he remembered him was because this man told his men: Armistice is in the air. We are going to have peace. I don't want any of you dying while we are about to have peace. So he shepherded all of them and put them under bridges in the Argonne Forest, saying: Hide for 24 hours because I sense that there will be no war in 24 hours and I don't want you dying.

Sure enough, within 24 hours the war was over. My father used to write to this captain, who lived in Illinois, and thank him for taking good care of him in the midst of that war, in the Argonne Forest, as a non-American who had become an American citizen by getting drafted and serving. Just as all our other veterans, he was very proud.

Today we have so many millions of American men and women who, one way or another, were like my father. They went off to serve their country. They have had times of great fear. They have had times of great concern. They have had times when there was heroism all around them.

I close today by saying something to all of them. In all of our wars--I know a little about the First World War because of my father, as I told you--but from all of the wars, I thank them all on behalf of the people of my State for what they have done to preserve the greatness of this country and the concept of freedom and liberty.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, November 12 at 10 a.m. has been rescheduled for Friday, November 14 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, there have been a lot of questions as to the status of the mental parity bill and where we are going and what our plans are from those who have been working on it for a long time. I remind everyone that this bill has been supported by large numbers of Senators.

We have had our difficulties the last year. Without going into detail, we have had difficulties trying to get this worked out for hearings in the House. We are in a position where we cannot get that done.

Now we are in a position where we can tell the Senators that the committee of jurisdiction, under the leadership of Judd Gregg, is looking at a substitute which seems acceptable to the community that helped us on the bill and that the chairman indicates will have a high priority in his committee the early part of next year. That means we should be passing mental parity in the first couple of months of the next session.

I note the presence on the floor of my principal cosponsor, since the demise of Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy. We have discussed this at length. I believe he concurs that this is the best approach. Our majority leader agrees. The minority leader agrees, as does the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction.

I would be pleased if Senator Kennedy will comment.

Absolutely. There is no diminution of interest on my part. I started this many years ago. We did pass it. Now we have to pass it on a full scale, and we will. We have to wait now for reasons out of our control, but it will get done early next year.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of H.J. Res. 63, legislation to approve and extend the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with jurisdiction over these islands, I am pleased that we are ready to pass this legislative package. We have made great progress in a short amount of time. The administration did not transmit the joint resolution to the Senate until July 14, 2003, and the original Compact expired on September 30. Since that time, we have been on an extension. However, in just over 3 months, Congress has completed its work and is now poised to enact the agreements that will govern our mutually beneficial relationship for the next 20 years.

The legislation now before the Senate encompasses a broad array of important policy issues, including funding, education, labor, disaster assistance, and immigration matters. Consequently, a number of committees have assisted the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in reaching this bipartisan agreement. For helping us resolve these numerous issues, I would like to thank Budget Committee Chairman Nickles and Ranking Member Senator Conrad; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Senator Kennedy; Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Senator Harkin; and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking member Senator Jeffords. Thanks also to the staff from these committees for their assistance.

I must of course express my appreciation to the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In particular, I would like to commend the leadership, provided by Senator Bingaman, the ranking member of the committee and Senator Craig, chair of the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee. A special thanks to Senator Akaka, a great friend and voice for the islands. The committee is grateful for his assistance in this effort. Finally, I would like to thank Kellie Donnelly and Allen Stayman of the committee staff for their hard work and dedication throughout this process.

Enactment of the amended Compacts will continue a remarkable relationship first forged after World War II. It is important to remember that these islands were occupied by Japan and experienced some of the bloodiest fighting during World War II. After the war, the islands were placed under the United Nations' trusteeship system. The United States served as U.N. trustee and in that capacity, aided the islands' transition into self-governing nations, freely associated with the United States. With the ratification of the original Compact of Free Association in 1986, a unique relationship with these islands was formed.

The Compact of Free Association has guided our Nation's relationship with the FSM and RMI for the past 17 years. Most would agree that the original Compact has been a success. Indeed, the Compact has achieved its goals of, 1, establishing full self-governance for the islands and ending the U.N. trusteeship; and 2, securing our mutual defense interests. One final goal remains, to assist Micronesia and the Marshall Islands in their efforts to advance economic self-sufficiency. The amended Compacts aim to achieve this goal.

The amended Compacts also seek to improve upon the original. After nearly 20 years of free association, the United States has learned a great deal and has identified areas in need of improvement. The legislation now before us continues U.S. economic assistance and each nation, including the United States, has increased oversight and accountability responsibilities via the Joint Economic Management Committees that have been established.

In order to realize the goal of economic self-reliance for the islands, the amended Compacts establish and capitalize trust funds for the FSM and RMI, respectively. Properly managed, the trust funds will provide an ongoing source of revenue when annual payments by the United States end in 2023.

H.J. Res. 63 further provides annual funding to address the migration impacts to neighboring Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. In the wake of September 11, the Compacts' immigration provisions have been strengthened. In addition, funding is provided for food importation programs and judicial training.

Importantly, the amended Compacts maintain our Nation's defense rights in the western Pacific. It should be noted that the FSM and RMI have proven to be two of our country's most steadfast

allies in this region of the world. The United States has a ``strategic denial right,'' that is, the right to deny access to the islands by the military forces of other nations. In addition, the United States has a ``defense veto'' that allows our Government to veto local actions that are determined to be incompatible with our defense responsibilities. The amended Compacts also seek to continue access to the U.S. military facilities at Kwajalein for the next 50 to 70 years.

The major policy issues of education and disaster assistance that are addressed in the amended Compacts have a very real impact on the daily lives of Micronesian and Marshallese citizens. Federal education programs have been available to the FSM and the RMI under the current Compact since 1986 and the administration testified that it assumed their continuation when it renegotiated the Compact. The Compact's goal of moving the islands to economic self-sufficiency will fail without these programs or funds to replace them.

In response to concerns expressed by the House and Senate Education Committees, we have reached agreement on an alternative approach to the education issue. The amended Compacts maintain the vital education programs of Pell Grants and the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. The remaining Federal formula grant education programs are terminated. In their place, a straight authorization is provided, $12,230,000 for the FSM and $6,100,000 for the RMI. This authorization creates a new discretionary grant program for the islands. The intent is to shift funding for these island's programs from their formula allocation of the national appropriation for these programs, to a separate appropriation of equal value.

In both chambers, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittees, which have funded the education programs for the islands for the past 17 years, have agreed to assist in funding this new approach. Once appropriated, the education funding would be disbursed and monitored in accordance with the Compact's fiscal procedures agreements with the FSM and RMI, respectively.

Islands are prone to natural disasters such as typhoons and, surprisingly, droughts. Disaster assistance, then, is of the utmost importance. In approving the original Compact, Congress ensured FEMA assistance for both the FSM and RMI. Clearly, some form of disaster assistance is necessary for infrastructure repair, to promote the goal of economic self-sufficiency, and to protect our investments.

As transmitted by the administration, the amended Compacts replaced FEMA with the U.S. AID's office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA. Because of the Energy Committee's concerns with OFDA's lack of reconstruction capability, the committee reinstated FEMA's services for the FSM and RMI. Only last week, the administration submitted an alternative proposal for disaster assistance that includes both FEMA and OFDA participation. While the proposal may be workable, it would be premature to adopt it at this time. The legislation now before the Senate maintains FEMA's services for a period of 5 years. During this time, the administration will negotiate disaster assistance that provisions with the Governments of the FSM and RMI. It is the Committee's expectation that an agreement will be concluded expeditiously and if progress is not made in a timely fashion, the committee may conduct an oversight hearing on the matter. At the end of 5 years though, if a conclusion is not reached and enacted during that time period, the administration's hybrid proposal will be triggered.

I am pleased that the amended Compacts will soon be signed by the President, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this significant legislative package.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with Senator Specter, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Harkin regarding the education provisions of H.J. Res. 63, to approve and extend the Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI.

U.S. assistance under the current compact is made available as both financial and program assistance. In the case of education, several U.S. domestic programs have been extended to the FSM and RMI since the compact was first approved in 1986. In July, the administration testified on this legislation and stated that ``funding in the compact was not structured to replace expiring Federal programs, or take the place of any program that is eliminated now, or could be eliminated in the future.'' In other words, continuation of the current program assistance was assumed. However, the House and Senate HELP committees have raised objections to this approach. Because these programs account for about 40 percent of the FSM and RMI education budgets, the success of the compacts depends upon either continuing the extension of these programs, or providing an alternate source of funding.

The Domenici-Bingaman amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 63 includes language modeled on that passed in the House, that would create an authorization for alternate funding. The amendment would continue eligibility for certain essential programs, but eligibility would be ended for the remaining Department of Education and Department of Labor formula-grant programs, and for the Head Start program. In their place, an authorization is provided to fund two discretionary supplemental education grants: $12,230,000 for the FSM, and $6,100,000 for the RMI. Once appropriated, these supplemental education grants would be disbursed, used, and monitored in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Interior, and in accordance with the compact's fiscal procedures agreements with the FSM and RMI, respectively. This approach resolves the disagreement with the HELP committees while best assuring that the FSM and RMI will continue to have the resources needed to meet their education needs.

I would like to ask the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, whether they support this approach and whether they will fund these alternate grants?

I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with Senator Inhofe, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Jeffords regarding the disaster assistance provisions of H.J. Res. 63 to approve and extend the Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI.

Under the current compact, the disaster assistance programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, have been available to the FSM and RMI since 1986. Located in the western Pacific, the RMI and FSM are vulnerable to typhoons and experience periodic droughts in connection with the El Nino weather pattern. This vulnerability to disasters presents risks to public health and safety, jeopardizes the substantial investment made by the U.S. in the island's infrastructure, and it threatens achievements of the common goal of all three nations--promoting economic growth. Consequently, FEMA's presence in the islands has been shown to be an essential component of the assistance provided under the compact.

Yes.

That is correct. In the final days before approval of the compacts, FEMA has transmitted a revised proposal regarding disaster assistance that would involve both FEMA and OFDA. This new proposal, coming at such a late stage in the process, has not been shared with the FSM and RMI. Indeed, it is my understanding that there are a number of questions about how the new proposal would work. Nevertheless, the concept appears sound and staff from the committee have worked with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to craft a compromise.

That is right. The Committees expect that FEMA, the administration, and the island governments will engage in such negotiations expeditiously and in good faith. Depending on the progress made by June 30, 2004, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee may hold an oversight hearing on the matter.

I thank my colleagues for their support and for their cooperation in reaching this agreement.