Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 930, S. 1279, GSA resolutions to authorize the FY 2004 Capital and Investment Leasing Program, H.R. 274, S. 269, S. 551, the Recycled Oil Bill (to be introduced), S. 793, H.R. 1018, H.R. 281, S. 1210, S. 1425, and the POPS implementing bill, to be introduced.

The hearing will be held in SD 406 (Hearing Room).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 9 a.m., to hold a nominations hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at a time and location to be determined to hold a business meeting to consider the nominations of Joe D. Whitley to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; Penrose C. Albright to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Plans, Programs, and Budget, Department of Homeland Security, and Joel D. Kaplan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2003.

The following agenda will be considered:

Presidential nominations: Howard Radzely, of Maryland, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor; and Michael Young, of Pennsylvania, to be a member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

Any additional nominees cleared for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on potential settlement mechanisms of the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet in the afternoon on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2 p.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 578, The Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

Panel III: Larry Alan Burns to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; Glen E. Conrad to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia; Henry F. Floyd to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina; Kim R. Gibson to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Michael W. Mosman to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon; and Dana Makoto Sabraw to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 on ``An Examination of S. 1194, The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.''

Witness List:

Panel I: Mr. Ron Honberg, Esq., National Alliance for Mental Illness, Arlington, VA; The Honorable Eve Stratton, Justice Ohio Supreme Court, Columbus, OH; Mr. Reggie Wilkinson, Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections, Columbus, OH; Sheriff Donald Eslinger, Seminole County Sheriff's Department, Sanford, FL; and The Honorable John Campbell, Vermont State Senate, Quechee, VT.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``SARS: Best Practices for Identifying And Caring for New Cases.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., on Space Exploration.

Mr. President, before the distinguished minority leader leaves the floor, might I say we, too, are prepared to move quickly to the Durbin amendment. Senator Bingaman and I are writing up a list we would agree on as to how we would proceed the next couple days. The problem is, the pending amendment is the Campbell amendment on Indians, and we were going to ask if we could set it aside so we could proceed with Durbin and then proceed with the subsequent amendment on automobiles which is just pending, and right on down--we have a list-- including getting the amendment on electricity offered today for debate.

But there is an objection to our proceeding. So that means we probably will have to take one of two actions: either put the electricity amendment on the Indian amendment, which I do not like, or we do the Indian amendment first. I don't know if we can do that. So it is too bad. Whoever is objecting, it would be good if they would not object to just setting the Indian amendment aside. It is being worked on. It is not a game breaker; it is just a question that there are now people who want to work it out as compared with fighting over it.

Senator Bingaman is here. I think he wishes to speak.

Mr. President, I think the minority leader has convinced me, and his suggestion was a good one. I withdraw the Campbell amendment provided he has the right to offer it at a later date.

Mr. President, I thought the other side said I could dispose of it however I would like so we

could get on with the business. I just tried to do that.

We can't proceed with any of the other amendments.

We would like to proceed with the CAFE amendment at this point.

I say to Senator Durbin, would you like to then proceed for a few minutes on your amendment?

We will get to that.

Senator Bingaman wants some time to speak to a Senator. So I ask Senator Durbin, how much time would you like to speak on your amendment?

We are trying to work with Senator Bingaman on the Durbin amendment and the other CAFE amendment.

We don't need a time agreement on Senator Durbin at this point.

Mr. President, we are preparing a unanimous consent request with reference to CAFE that has a reasonable chance. I wish to say to everyone, the distinguished Senator from Alaska just suggested that we attempt to get this bill completed, suggesting that we sit down and try to

find some alternative. In this Senator's humble opinion, there are ample votes to get the pending bill passed. Individual Senators, justifiably, have reason for delay. That is their business, and they are going to do just that.

The question is how long will they delay and to what end. There is no question that the Senator is correct with respect to natural gas. There are even other provisions with reference to natural gas. But the issue now is to get an agreement where we can have some votes.

It appears to me that we are now close to getting something done on CAFE. There are two very important CAFE amendments. We are trying to get them written up where we will get them scheduled for debate and votes shortly after the recess this afternoon, after which the pending amendment will obviously be the Campbell amendment, and we will attempt to dispose of that amendment. Then we are free to move with dispatch, I say to the Senator from Alaska.

I wonder if we are pretty close to getting a unanimous consent request?

Yes, I will be pleased to yield.

Might we count his time now? I have no objection. He is going to get some time in the unanimous consent request. I ask that whatever time he uses now be counted.

I will be pleased to yield.

He will. Did the Senator ask for an up-or-down vote on his amendment?

I cannot give the Senator that assurance. It is not totally up to me. If it was up to me, it would be all right. It is not up to me.

It is not included.

Yes, ``on or in relation.''

I agree. The Senator can have an up-or-down vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak in relation to amendments Nos. 1384 and 1386: Senator Levin, 10 minutes; Senator Bond, 10 minutes; Senator Lott, 10 minutes, to follow Senator Durbin; Senator Stabenow, 10 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, 40 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes; Senator Domenici, 5 minutes. Further, that the Bond amendment be amended with a Bingaman second-degree amendment which is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the votes occur on the Durbin amendment No. 1384, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 1386, as amended, at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes in relation to the amendments.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, en bloc, under the following conditions for debate only: Senators Grassley, 45; Baucus, 45; Hollings, 60; Daschle, 30; Jeffords, 60; Sessions in control of 45; Hatch, 15; Stevens, 15; Cornyn, 15; Feinstein, 60. I further ask that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the bills be read a third time and the Senate immediately proceed to a Senate resolution regarding immigration provisions included in the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements; the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided, further, that the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the Singapore free trade agreement followed by a vote on passage of the Chile free trade agreement, with no intervening action or debate.

On the unanimous consent I just read?

I have no objection.

Before we proceed to Senator Durbin, I say to all the Senators, so there will be no misunderstanding, we are going to dispose of the CAFE amendments this afternoon. That means that the next amendment which will be before us is the amendment regarding Indians. If there continues to be objection that we cannot set it aside, we will vote either on it or in relation to it immediately following disposition of the CAFE amendments. It is the intention of the manager that that occur, after which time it is the intention of the manager to proceed to lay before the Senate the electricity amendment which has been in the hands of Senators for almost 4 days now.

I thank everyone for their cooperation thus far. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I just returned, and I apologize. Where are we now? As I understand it, some time was used on a matter other than this bill charged to other matters. How much time is left now, and who has the time?

I note the distinguished minority whip is here.

He did. Yes.

We object to granting you that privilege at this point. We understand the time will come, but it isn't certain that she will have the next amendment. That is the point.

We have no objection. I misunderstood. I apologize. If you want the Record to reflect that the next Democratic amendment will be Senator Feinstein's amendment on CAFE, we have no objection.

That is correct; whenever you do.

So you don't have any misunderstanding either, we will be finished with the debate and, as we understand it, we will then vote.

That is correct.

We want to accommodate. If there was any misunderstanding, it perhaps was on my part. I have no objection.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to the remaining three Senators.

That is fine. I was going to make sure he got it by giving him some of mine. I appreciate that very much. It is hard to say who should speak last because the first amendment to be voted on is Senator Bond's amendment. Maybe he should be speaking last. If that is the way we are going to do it----

Well, look, Senator Durbin has 15 minutes. We don't need to give him any more time. He can save 2 of that for just before the vote. We need to save Senator Bond 2 minutes. We need to give Senator Bond 2 minutes to speak in opposition. Senator Durbin doesn't need any additional minutes beyond the 15.

I thought you had been speaking all afternoon--but it is eloquent.

Mr. President, I have how many minutes?

Mr. President, I will try to do it in that period of time. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes instead of the 2 minutes and something.

Mr. President, I think I am going to do it in 2 minutes and whatever few seconds.

First, I have been looking forward to this debate all day because it is a very mature debate. The Senate spent a good deal of time last year discussing these two amendments, as well as others. The Feinstein amendment we agreed to and that we will be talking about, I think we discussed it heretofore also, but in any event, a lot of time has been spent discussing these amendments.

In addition to these amendments, I remind Senators that we have already adopted an amendment, that came as quite a surprise, by Senator Landrieu that would require the President to develop a plan to reduce domestic petroleum consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2013. Since major reductions in oil consumption are most likely going to be achieved through reductions in the use of transport fuels, the President, as a result of the Landrieu amendment, will probably have to focus on measures to increase fuel economy.

I suggest to Senators that the Landrieu amendment may obviate the need for further debate. Nonetheless, we are debating and we will continue to debate. It seems to me the Landrieu amendment gives the President the kind of authority and flexibility needed in this country if, in fact, this issue is as important as it is being alluded to.

Keeping that in mind, if the Senate must choose among the offered CAFE amendments, I must lend my support to the amendment offered by Senator Bond and Senator Levin. Under Bond-Levin, standards will be based upon sound science and solid technical advice. Their amendment mandates that NHTSA experts set a new CAFE number considering jobs, safety, technology, and other key factors.

The Bond-Levin amendment passed overwhelmingly last year. I do not think much has changed. As a matter of fact, we are a little bit more secure in terms of energy now. We are still using a lot, maybe more, but the world is a little more secure in terms of oil dependence. The amendment they have offered is what I would call a commonsense amendment. It would not adversely affect employment, safety, or consumer choice, but it would do the job.

Incidentally, the amendment is supported by the United Auto Workers, the National Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau of America, and over 30 additional associations.

When combined with the considerable tax incentives for advanced vehicle technology in the Finance Committee package, the Bond-Levin amendment offers a sensible way to achieve fuel efficiency gains and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It does so in a way that would not hurt the United States economy, increase vehicle cost to consumers, and cost American jobs or endanger lives.

I understand the distinguished Senator from Illinois has about 3 minutes, after which time we will start a vote.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are going to vote on this amendment, and then immediately following that, the next amendment will be the Bond-Levin amendment, which will be preceded by 2 minutes of debate on the part of Senator Durbin in opposition and Senator Bond in favor. So Senators should know we have one vote, with 4 minutes of debate followed by another vote. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, fellow Senators, if you will not leave, we will vote again very shortly. There are 4 minutes with 2 minutes on each side, and then we will vote on the Bond-Levin amendment. The Senator from Illinois has the first 2 minutes and Senator Bond wraps it up. Then we will vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, if I may have the attention of Senators, please, there are two amendments. One is a Durbin amendment, which Senator Durbin indicated when he sent it to the desk was sent up by mistake. It is a so-called Durbin No. 2 tax amendment. He said, then, that he would like to withdraw it.

I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to withdraw that amendment.

Madam President, I move to table the Durbin amendment.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: Is a motion to set aside the Durbin tax amendment the pending business?

A motion to table.

Let's go.

That having been done, I move to set the amendment aside.

The amendment is withdrawn?

The amendment is still pending. I move to set the amendment of Senator Durbin aside.

I want to set both amendments aside so that I can proceed with another amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment be set aside and that the Campbell amendment be set aside so that we may proceed with the electricity amendment.

I thank Senator Cantwell for her cooperation. First, I assure her that what we have just done in no way jeopardizes her rights to offer amendments. She has not only one but maybe a number of amendments she wants to offer to the so-called electricity provisions. That will be offered next, and clearly we are going to be on it until Senators have no more amendments. So we are going to be here long enough for the amendments of Senator Cantwell to be offered, whatever they are and however many there are.

Amendment No. 1412

I send the electricity amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The electricity amendment pending at the desk has 13 cosponsors. I thank the cosponsors, Senator Landrieu, Senator Thomas, Senator Murkowski, Senator Campbell, Senator Smith, Senator Alexander, Senator Kyl, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Hagel, Senator Talent, Senator Bunning, and Senator Coleman.

I have a very brief statement, and I trust Senators will listen. It is to the point. We will be on this until there are no more amendments to offer to this title.

I will be pleased to yield.

Yes.

Madam President, I can guarantee Senators that the Senator from New Mexico has worked for the last 7 months on this bill. The electricity amendment is a compromise supported by a broad array of stakeholders, much broader than I ever would have thought when I assumed the chairmanship of this committee. I believe that, per se, assumes that this amendment plugs all the so-called loopholes so there will not be any Enron end runs.

I repledge that I will work with any Senator who has an amendment that they think improves upon this bill. That does not mean, however, that every amendment that comes along, that says it makes this bill better, is going to be one that this Senator accepts. I do not want to return to the regulation of PUHCA as a way of protecting the consumers. Quite to the contrary. I believe its day has come. It has served its purpose.

There are a number of letters of support for this electricity amendment which I am offering. Let me start with the administration. They say they support the substitute electricity amendment and believe it will effectively modernize our Nation's antiquated electricity laws.

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association:

Supports passage of the carefully crafted Domenici

amendment without modification.

The American Public Power Association:

Strongly supports the compromise in its totality without

modification.

The Large Public Power Council:

Supports the electricity substitute without modification.

Electric utility companies such as Mid-America, Allegheny, and Xcel, have offered their support for the Domenici electricity amendment, and I have now told my colleagues that it is supported by 13 Senators.

Because it is bipartisan, we might call it the Domenici-Landrieu amendment. For those who claim we need a balanced energy policy, here is a balanced electric title with wide support that needs to be included in our final bill. Some would add changes to it, and we are willing to look at them, but those who understand the complexities of the issues known as the Domenici electricity amendment know it represents a fair common ground. That is why there is support for this amendment without modification.

I know there will be a number of second-degree amendments, and I am willing to look at them. I have already said I am willing to look specifically at amendments from the distinguished Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. I will look at them carefully. I understand the significance of the problem she confronts. I do not support any amendments yet, and obviously if they disturb the delicate and sometimes gentle balance in this bill, I will have to oppose them. I will look with genuine interest, with the best talent I have, at amendments that Senators have if they think they really address the issues that have beset this country over the past 25, 26 months in terms of natural gas, utility prices, and utility companies and their shenanigans, such as at Enron.

The amendment is now pending. I am very proud of it, and I am pleased to be at this point. I thank the Chair for recognition, and I thank the Senate for paying attention. We are going to be open to amendments, and I understand my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, will probably have an amendment shortly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleague from New Mexico on his superb argument and presentation. I regret that I have to disagree. But before I state a few remarks, because I believe my friend from Wyoming has done a very good job of telling the Senate why we don't need this amendment, I would like to ask the Senate and all the Senators and their staffs, who were paying attention on their behalf, to remember now that we are on that very important part of this legislation--the electricity section--which we understood many Senators were worried about, and we understood a number of Senators had amendments.

I have known from the beginning that my friend, Senator Bingaman, had one or two amendments. But I heard other people saying: We don't want to hurry along here because this is a very important piece of legislation and we want to have a chance to offer amendments.

Well, the time is now. I am very hopeful, and the majority leader has told me it is up to me. I look at my distinguished friend, who is very much on top of things in the Senate, the Senator from Nevada, and say that he told me and our leader to stay here as late as we can tonight to get all the amendments we possibly can on this subject.

We know a lot of Senators are busy, but we know they were told we were going to be in session every day this week. We are going to work day and evening. Every evening we work, it takes away an extra day at the end of the week that will detract from our recess. So if Senators have amendments, get them ready. We want them after this amendment.

When I am finished, and after my friend from Wyoming has another chance to speak, if he wishes, I am going to ask the minority side what they would like to do next.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Reid, my desire is that we not vote immediately on the Bingaman amendment, although I am perfectly willing. It is 20 minutes of 7. There is nobody on our side saying we should not. Maybe Senator Reid knows some reasons. I much prefer Senators keep doing what they are doing but that somebody come down and offer another amendment. Then I prefer not to vote on that amendment. I prefer another amendment until we have as many amendments as we can get in by late tonight.

Why do I want to work late tonight? Besides it being Tuesday and we want to finish this bill by Friday, it is the unspoken word that the other side of the aisle, more so than we do, wants to offer some clean- air type amendments that really do not belong on this bill but have historically or traditionally found their way on it because they do not have any other place to go. They want to offer some amendments.

There are apparently two amendments on that side, at least, plus a couple of other amendments in the same vein. They wanted to offer them tomorrow, which can be nicknamed ``environmental day.'' We want to cooperate. To the extent we have to use more of the day for electricity amendments, we use less time for other amendments.

I will in a very few words state my case. In 1935, I was 3 years old. I am not a student of what happened in the world during the Great Depression, but PUHCA was passed. It is funny sounding. It is terrible it had to have such an acronym, PUHCA, Public Utility Holding Company Act. It is almost one of those acronyms that cries out to never be called by an acronym, and it is better to be called the Public Utility Holding Company Act than PUHCA.

Over the years, I have heard that funny word, and I did not even want to find out what it meant, but Public Utility Holding Company was a protective mechanism to make sure that during an era of pyramiding, where big money would buy up utilities, there was somebody watching. As an example, if one very rich bank out of Chicago, IL, started buying up companies all over the country and became a holding company--thus the title.

Nobody is crying for the retention of PUHCA because there are so many other protections for that which it was invented. It is time for that funny name to disappear, and then it will not be used so much. We can then just say ``used to be PUHCA,'' and we will not have to talk about it.

The truth is, as Senator Thomas said--and I agree--expanding FERC's authority to cover acquisition of generating facilities, which is part of Senator Bingaman's amendment, is unnecessary. Furthermore, this amendment preempts States' abilities to protect consumers. Repealing PUHCA will not preclude State and Federal regulators from protecting ratepayers. Access to books and records, as well as rules, regarding debt acquisition will protect investment made on behalf of ratepayers.

Also, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will continue to protect against antitrust violations, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which currently oversees PUHCA, has recommended on a number of occasions that it be repealed with certain consumer protections transferred to FERC and State regulatory commissions, as noted above.

What we are doing is getting rid of PUHCA, the 1935 antiquated law. In place of it, we clarify the jobs FERC does today and expand it only in a limited fashion. Our amendment let's PUHCA review utility transactions. The new authority is granted over gas

acquisitions of utility companies by an electric utility company. This protects consumers and promotes investment in that regard.

Clearly, if ever there was a case where we are overprotecting, it is the utility companies. I mentioned how many protections already exist. PUHCA started disappearing into the woodwork and became subservient and almost consumed by the SEC--they run it. SEC said they do not need PUHCA anymore.

Believe it or not, it is pretty certain, when we finally vote, we are going to get rid of PUHCA. It is like certain past Presidents recommended getting rid of PUHCA and 40 years later something happens. That reminds me of something interesting and funny. About 8 years ago, I was heralded as one who had passed the largest single sale of public property, and all I had done was to take the U.S. Government's ownership of converting highly enriched uranium for use by nuclear powerplants, which is owned by the public, which had been recommended 30 years before to be privatized, and I privatized it. I was heralded for having passed the first multibillion-dollar sale of property of the Federal Government. It is nothing new. It sure did not take any ingenuity, just like it takes no ingenuity to know that PUHCA ought to get out of here.

In getting rid of PUHCA, the test that FERC applies is:

Consistent with the public interest, we do not add new

tests.

Senator Bingaman's amendment does. I do not think we need to add new tests. I believe what is in the bill is adequate for the governance of FERC in that regard.

When I introduced the bill, I told the Senate all the groups that liked this bill--the public-private ownership, all of them. And it is most interesting, they all think we adequately protect against whatever the evils might have been that PUHCA might have covered: Municipalities, the APRAs, the large public power companies. They think there is a pretty good balance just like it is.

At some point in time I hope when we vote on this that Senator Bingaman will understand there are those of us who think what we put in the bill is perfectly adequate and well balanced with reference to protection in this area.

I ask Senator Bingaman and Senator Reid if they are finished? Are we ready for another amendment?

Yes.

Yes.

I say to the Senator truthfully, it is not understood how hard I worked and how much I worried and sweated to get to where we are, which is the pending matter. I want Senators to understand we have to get rid of it.

So I do not want to do that. I want Senators to get their amendments, even if it takes us a little while longer. The Senator is implying there may be four, maybe five. I do not know.

Might I ask Senator Bingaman if he has another amendment?

My pleasure is that we have votes tonight, unless the Senate sends word, in its inimicable way, that we are going to get all the amendments on electricity in due course this evening, in which event I would say we will not have any votes.

When does the Senator think she might know?

Could the Senator inquire? What we could do then, while the Senator is inquiring, we could go with the second Bingaman amendment and we will stack them with a clear understanding that when we are ready, we will proceed in the same order they have been offered to vote on them.

To the extent the Senator from Nevada desires and can be helpful--and that is strictly up to him--I would rather we get other Senators to offer amendments. Senator Bingaman has one. Are there any others?

We know Senator Cantwell wants a lot of time and we would say to her she could be last tonight and take as long as she wants. We could then come in in the morning and take some more. I do not think we ought to have her come up and then say the only thing we did tonight was the Bingaman No. 1 and Cantwell all evening. I think we ought to be doing a little more than that.

Let's try to do this: Let us assume that we had Bingaman No. 2 and the Senator from Nevada went off and tried to discern how many other amendments on this subject we have, and that he return and say what they are. I am perfectly willing then to try to set in motion an agreement that some of them would be taken up in the morning.

If we do not know, we are going to stay here and see how many we can flush out.

Does Senator Bingaman want to proceed?

Sure.

First, I thank the Senator for the hard work he is doing, trying to ascertain from Senators at this hour--although we have all been telling them we are working, and this is the work part of the day, it is not hard to find out what they want to do. I thank you for the obviously successful effort you made so far.

Yes.

Might I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, all I want to try to do is move this bill along, as you know, and to do that in a way that is consistent with Senators having ample time to prepare and to present their amendments properly. You indicated to me, without certainty but relatively close, that you probably--we are probably looking at eight amendments, five Senators, with one of them who has three.

I might ask, Is Senator Bingaman's No. 2 included in that?

No. So it is the possibility of nine amendments. I want to tell the Senator from the start that, as far as the distinguished Senator Maria Cantwell, I certainly do not have any objection to 1 hour tonight and 2 hours tomorrow morning. We can start with that. But what I do have some concern about is trying to determine when we would be finished with amendments to the electricity title. I tell you that as much because I have been hearing from your side of the aisle of the great desire to take up two amendments that have to do with climate change. I have been told the only way that can be done, and done right, is tomorrow because everybody will be here. That is two.

I have been told that--and I know--Senator Bingaman wants to offer his amendment with reference to a 10 percent mandatory renewable portfolio, and that belongs in the same package.

I have been told the distinguished Senator has a new source performance review; is that correct? Is that what it is called?

I remember that when I was on the committee--new source review. He had that up once. A couple of Senators came back who were not here then. That may well be why. But that is another one we have to look at.

I guess what I am wondering is, if it would be asking you too much to suggest the following; that Senator Bingaman offer his amendment--I am not suggesting, I am not proposing this officially--he offer his second amendment here, and that Senator Cantwell offer her amendment tonight and debate it for an hour; that you try to find one more amendment to be offered tonight, and then that we reach agreement, come back tomorrow, reconvene at 9 o'clock in the morning, at which time Senator Cantwell would have her time, and all the remaining amendments--that is 9, 10, 11--remaining amendments in this area would be finished by 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

What time would you think?

Yes.

What would you like, 2:30; 3?

I would like to do this, with your concurrence. Why don't we proceed with the Bingaman amendment, tell Senator Maria Cantwell she will be next for an hour tonight. In the meantime, would you let us work on the unanimous consent request proposal so your staff and ours----

Unless an agreement is worked out, Senator, we are going to have a vote tonight.

Would the Senator like to work on a unanimous consent request that includes Senator Maria Cantwell?

Let us make this effort: That Senator Bingaman would proceed for as long as it takes, Senator Cantwell will offer her amendment and take an hour tonight, and that we work on a UC request together while that is occurring. She will get her 2 hours tomorrow, and we will try to get a consent as to when we might finish. If not, I will go along and say we won't have any votes tonight.

I want to say now--and I will say it three more times tonight before we finish--to Senators wherever they are that we are not quitting tomorrow night at 7:20. If there are Senators who want to be off the Hill, they can be off. We are going to be here tomorrow night voting on amendments that your side wants. We are just about out of amendments on our side of the aisle. I am not sure of any really important ones left. Your side has been telling me they want these very important amendments that they claim are related to this bill. A whole bunch of amendments that are left don't even belong on this Energy bill and are not even within this committee's jurisdiction. This Senator stands up and argues against them but, as a matter of fact, they ought to be argued by another committee chairman. I am not even the one who takes care of them. But I will have to do that.

As long as everybody understands, Senator Cantwell will be taking 2 hours tomorrow. We are going to start at 9 o'clock. We are still going to be on these amendments to this bill. We need Senators to get ready tomorrow morning with additional amendments in this arena. Then we will proceed quickly to the amendments such as the one Senator Feinstein has and all the others. But we will be here tomorrow evening. We will be here plenty late as we take those amendments, as long as we understand we are ready to do what you recommend.

We will stay right on electricity in the morning and try to finish it as soon as we can. I am hoping that it doesn't take all day so we can go to the other issues. But at this point, could we just, so as to protect you, agree that if you will move as follows tonight, we will set aside the current Bingaman amendment so that the second Bingaman amendment can be taken up. Then it will be set aside so we can take up first the Cantwell. She will use 1 hour tonight. We will answer, if we see fit. If not, we will debate it tomorrow. Nonetheless, we will come in tomorrow at 9 o'clock, and when we get on this bill, Senator Cantwell will be up and she will have an additional 2 hours on her amendment. I am merely adding as a matter of discussion that further amendments on this section of the bill will be in order at that time.

Is that fair enough?

Senators understand that means we are not going to vote tonight. But you certainly can look to a late night tomorrow night with votes.

I yield the floor and thank the distinguished Senator.

I say to my friend, Senator Bingaman, perhaps, with a little bit of time, we can work on it and see if there is some way we can avoid an amendment. If not, clearly, you understand yours, and we understand our reasoning why we do not need it; that it should not be an amendment; that it should not be raised to that level; that it is not needed in terms of the full amendment. But we will work on it.

Now, I understand the time has arrived when I would make a request because I don't think I did the other in the form of a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the second Bingaman amendment be set aside so that the distinguished Senator, Maria Cantwell, can offer her amendment, and that she would use up to 1 hour tonight and have up to 2 hours tomorrow on that same amendment.

I ask Senator Cantwell, that is correct, is it not, that you would like up to an hour tonight and up to 2 hours tomorrow on this amendment?

I just wanted to make it clear we are not trying to deny you anything. We just have to have some idea what comes next so other people can be ready. And if it looks as if we come in at 9, you would still have up to 2 hours for further discussion by you and others regarding that amendment.

The Senator is correct, except, might I say, I think it is fair, just for the Senate's sake, that we say on both of those up to 2 hours. And I do not intend to amend. But we don't have to wait here if she is finished.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't have any objection, but we have been talking for about an hour about that amendment and you, I say to the distinguished minority whip, have been saying the important thing is that she would have an hour tonight on her amendment. But we are not going to have her amendment. We thought it was going to be laid down so we would know what it is about.

Can we have the amendment? That is all we want.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a wonderful man, Dr. Victor Westphall, who passed away July 22. Dr. Westphall dedicated his life to recognizing and celebrating the service and sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans.

Dr. Westphall's dedication to fallen heroes was not surprising because he too was a veteran. He entered the United States Navy in 1943 as an Ensign and served in the South Pacific during World War II. During this time, he was responsible for setting up message centers to allow front-line communication. After 3 years and two full stripes in the Navy, Dr. Westphall moved with his wife and his two sons to New Mexico. He earned his doctorate in history at the University of New Mexico and eventually became a leading author and expert on Southwest American history.

On a most painful day in May of 1968, Dr. Westphall received word that his son, David, had been killed in Vietnam. David, a Marine lieutenant, died with 12 of his men in an ambush near Con Thien. Soon after, Dr. Westphall was determined to draw some good out of this tragic event. He decided to use the life insurance payment from his son's death to build the Vietnam Veterans Peace and Brotherhood Chapel in Angel Fire, NM. Although Dr. Westphall struggled to find financial support to help build the memorial, he remained dedicated to the project, and in 1971, the first monument to pay homage to Vietnam veterans in the United States was formally dedicated.

The Vietnam Veterans Peace and Brotherhood Chapel stands as a majestic tribute to our veterans who served in Vietnam. Dr. Westphall hired a Santa Fe architect to design a beautiful white chapel with gentle curves sweeping 50 feet upward toward the sky. This serene memorial overlooks the sacred Moreno Valley, just below New Mexico's 13,000 foot Wheeler Peak. It offers visitors the opportunity to remember those who served their Nation proudly in the Vietnam War in a peaceful and spiritual setting. The Chapel's eternal flame illuminates this hallowed place for quiet meditation.

I often remember a touching story that Dr. Westphall occasionally recounted about the Chapel. When the memorial was first opened, the Chapel would close nightly. However, one morning Dr. Westphall found a message left by a young veteran on the door: ``I needed to come in and you locked me out.'' Since then, the Chapel remained open every hour of every day.

Like the Chapel, Dr. Westphall was always there for our Nation's veterans. I salute Dr. Westphall's lifetime of service and devotion to our veterans, and I am proud and honored to have had him as a friend. He gave his son, his time, his money, his property, and life to honor our fallen heroes.

As a fitting tribute, I end with the inscription at the entrance to his son's Chapel, now called the Vietnam Veterans National Memorial:

The Ultimate Curse

Greed plowed cities desolate

Lusts ran snorting thru the streets

Pride reared up to desecrate

Shrines, and there were no retreats.

So man learned to shed the tears

With which he measures out his years.

--Victor David Westphall III

Mr. President, I understand we will have a number of amendments this morning. Yesterday we had two CAFE amendments. I understand there is a third--at least a third--that will be presented this morning. We are hoping that will be the extent of the CAFE amendments and that we will eventually vote on those and the Senate will work its will, as it has already in the past on CAFE standards. I understand there is a good chance there will be a number of amendments offered this morning.

There is no desire on my part to ask for votes today. Every effort will be made to work out with the minority a method of stacking them for Monday which would be far more accommodating to Senators.

While we wait to untangle some matters, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last night I took a couple of minutes to tell the Senate that a good friend of mine, but also a great New Mexican, was dead, Colin McMillan. My friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, just spoke of him.

It is remarkable that Senator Bingaman would speak of him with such glaring words when, as a matter of fact, they ran against each other in a statewide campaign.

The truth is, he was a truly outstanding man. His death is rather unexplainable. We still do not know enough about it, but we do know that he was too young to die and had succeeded at just about everything he tried in his life, starting out at the University of North Carolina where he was a Phi Beta Kappa in the college of engineering and became an enormously successful geological engineer. He was one of those who was first to grab on to the modern techniques of discerning what lies below the surface and, thus, became an expert and developed a successful company helping others locate oil and gas. He formed his own exploration company and became an oil and gas entrepreneur.

Along with that achievement, he had a western craving to own a ranch, and he had a beautiful ranch. I have been there many times. It is a great place to hunt quail. His ranch is renowned for quail. My son Peter and I and others in New Mexico have been there with him many times. It is rather ironic that he was found dead at the ranch yesterday some time during the day by the ranch hands.

When I spoke this morning with my oldest son, he used the word ``brutal.'' I use it today. It is truly brutal for those of us who knew him. All we can say is he succeeded at almost everything he wanted to do in life. Clearly, there are few in New Mexico who will achieve as much as he. He was really looking forward to becoming Secretary of the Navy, taking great pride in being a Marine officer for 3 years after completing his baccalaureate degree in North Carolina.

I and my wife Nancy clearly have had a very tough personal loss in his death, and there is not much more I can say other than he will be missed. We will all find out someday, perhaps in the hereafter, how all this happened. In the meantime, all we can say is we will miss him terribly, and we wish for all of his family an understanding beyond normal capacity to apprehend, that there will come upon them some understanding as to why all of this happened.

He had been sick. He had a recurrence of cancer that inflicted him some 2 years ago. Everybody thought he was recovered and recuperating quite well. At least we thought so and his family thought so, when this tragedy occurred.

I thank the Senate for the time.

Mr. President, before we call on Senators, we are expecting closure of between 5 and 10 amendments, which we will present jointly this morning on this Energy bill. The biggest issue everyone has asked so much about is the electricity title. It is a very complex title. We have tried to put together a major bipartisan amendment. It is in the hands of all the Senators and, as a result, because it is so important, it is in the hands of hundreds of experts and lobbyists and companies across this country.

By Monday, everybody should know what they want to do with it, to it, or for it. It will be offered Monday with the hope that we will begin serious debate on that amendment.

CAFE standards has been one of those issues of importance. We have two of the major CAFE standards amendments pending. They were offered last night. We will work out a time for voting on them on Monday. We expected another CAFE standards amendment this morning, but it has not materialized. Let's hope it does so we can get them all lined up to dispose of them Monday evening.

There are about five other major issues that are being worked on, and we hope we can prove that the Senate is capable of completing this bill in five additional working days, besides last night and today, and the previous time we spent on the bill.

Everyone should remember, the majority leader said we are going to finish this bill. We are scheduled for our August recess next Friday, but we have been told those recess days will not commence until we have finished this bill. I hope everybody understands that is not said in any way other than in a positive way. There is plenty of time so long as Senators do not desire an inordinate amount of time on any subject. We probably have one or two climate change amendments. We probably have, as I indicated, an additional CAFE amendment and many amendments on the electricity section. Plus, I am sure the minority leader has some amendments with reference to mandating the percentage of wind energy and solar energy that must be utilized by the utility companies. That will be thoroughly debated and voted on. There may be a couple other major issues, but I think that covers most of them--and I covered them last night reminding everybody to get ready. We always have the idea around here that we will get ready when the time is necessary.

People put off things until that ominous time. On Energy amendments, the time has come. The electricity amendment is in our hands. It is major legislation. We are going to proceed with dispatch, at least as much dispatch as the Senate will let us, and we will try to push that as nicely and calmly but as rigorously as we can for the next 5 or 6 days in an effort to complete this bill.

I yield the floor.

I object.

I have no objection.

Whatever time the Senator desires. We have no objection.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish to make a comment.

First, I was present when Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, spoke, which was prior to Senator Burns. He heard him, he talked to him, and then he spoke.

I wish to talk a minute about an issue that is dear to the Senator and Senator Bingaman, who sits here, and myself. We continue to have meetings in our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Agriculture Committee of the Senate trying to analyze why it is we are unable to address the issue of thinning our forests and getting rid of blighted areas in large manner rather than taking so long and sitting by and watching the forests of America deteriorate to the point that they become tinderboxes. They are so filled with overgrowth that fires are inevitable. And when fires happen, very big trees burn because the bottom is totally filled with too many trees, too much brush, too many of the branches and leaves that have fallen. Then thousands of acres are blighted and dried and nobody is doing anything about it.

Then comes a fire. Then we come along and we say: Let's put up extra money to put out these fires, so-called disaster money. Then groups across America begin to run advertisements, have meetings and say: What is the matter with Congress? We can't get our forests thinned. We can't get them fixed. We cannot get the kind of reform that will get work done.

We have arguments that break along environmental and nonenvironmental lines. We can solve those, perhaps, in the next month or two.

But let me say to the U.S. House, I submit to you the real problem we are having in getting any kind of real cleanup of the forests--that is, preventive work done on American forests, be it BLM forests that belong to Interior or forests that belong to the Department of Agriculture and the National Forest Service--is because there isn't any money to do it.

The question is, why isn't there any money? We are always appropriating money for it. And every year there will be a bill that comes through here, Interior appropriations, and you find money for that, a lot of money for that. But guess what happens. Very shortly as the year starts, we have to put out fires. And then what happens? There is no money to put out those fires.

The disaster money we are talking about today and that Senator Stevens came to the floor and told the House about, the Departments of our Government say: Well, we have a disaster. We have to spend the money.

Surely, they do. What they do is, they take money from other aspects of the Government. What are those? Many of them are accounts which would be used for major prevention on the forests. If there isn't any money for that, the year will pass. The money will have been spent on the disaster, and we will be here talking about a supplemental that is too late and inadequate, and the prevention will not occur.

It is so desperate that in our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, there have been suggestions to try to set this money aside, to set up a new fund, a whole new way so that the prevention money is prevention money and nothing else. The distinguished Senator, Mr. Bingaman, has suggested such an effort.

I am not sure it will work because obviously once you get a big forest fire going and you don't have any money to put out the fire, they are going to find the money somewhere within the Department, unless you took it out of Interior and put it in the Army and said: You can't get it because it isn't even there. They are going to have to use the money they have and make it fungible, take it away from prevention and use it for disaster.

Somehow or another we have to stop that. While I am not today able to say to the House what they are and aren't doing because I am not privy to what Chairman Stevens is, it seems to me that something like this is occurring early in the season in this supplemental that the House is talking about. Before we even get seriously into the season, we are having more of this: Well, we are having to put out disasters. We will find the money. And if we didn't put up enough, use other money. And yes, there will be a whole

blighted area somewhere in Alaska or northern New Mexico that is supposed to get money for prevention and cleanup, and they will be out of money.

Essentially, this is not simple fun and games. This is serious business. We sit around and watch the forests of America change so that they no longer look like, behave like, or are like they used to be. Our people know it. We know it. They are filled to the brim with too much growth, too much underbrush. They are not even the forests of old. You can't take your children for a nice walk in the forest in most American forests because you can't even walk in them.

I went up into northern New Mexico to the Jemez area and surrounding where I remember, as a youngster, we used to go. There were huge cottonwood trees, wide open, full of pine needles. And believe it or not, it was filled with beautiful growth, such as mushrooms and things that are very pretty. You find you can't even walk, much less see if there is any vegetation, because we haven't had any prevention. We haven't had any maintenance on those forests.

That is minuscule, because we are minuscule in New Mexico compared to the West Coast--Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. I suspect we are talking about the wrong things in this bill over in the House. We are talking about putting money in the wrong place and not facing up to the reality that there are two very distinct needs. And you cannot continue to rob one to pay for the other unless you quickly meet up before the year is out and replenish all of the money in the Departments that are operational, that are ongoing maintenance and operation of the BLM and the Forest Service of America.

I urge the House to do that and be careful not to rob those accounts so much by not appropriating sufficient money for the disaster straight out and leave that other money to be used for what it is intended.

I yield the floor.

How long might the Senator speak on this issue?

We are trying to work out about 5 or 10 amendments. If we get them ready, we will call it to his attention on the bill before us. In the meantime, I am going to have no objection to his proceeding to discuss trade as in morning business.

I ask the Senator if he would permit the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, to speak for a couple of minutes on the issue we have just been speaking on, to wit, the House action with reference to the supplemental. When he yields, I will have no objection to the Senator from North Dakota following him, subject to the understanding that if we need to interrupt him, of course, doing it in an appropriate way, to bring in the amendments, the Senator will have no objection.

Mr. President, we have worked out 11 amendments we would like to dispose of today.

I send a series of amendments to the desk and ask for their consideration en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The amendments have been cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk and ask for their consideration en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The amendments have been cleared on both sides. These are clarifying and technical amendments, agreed to by Senator Bingaman and myself as the managers of the bill. I request these amendments not be counted against any reservations on the finite list of amendments.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor a remarkable and talented young man who will be sorely missed as he moves to the administration to become the special assistant on energy to the President of the United States. Clay Sell has been working for me as chief clerk for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for the past 4 years and while I am extremely proud of his accomplishments, I am sad to see him go.

When Clay first came to the Senate, he impressed us all with his quick uptake of his new position and we were pleasantly surprised with his negotiation skills. It has been said of Clay that even when he negotiated a victory for his position, all parties involved left the negotiation table happy. His keen understanding of people and his genuine attitude are just a few of the great personality traits that Clay possesses.

Clay's hard work and dedication began at an early age. Growing up in greater West Texas, he learned the value of hard work and perseverance. The Sell family settled in Petersburg, TX in the early 1900's, a small farming community that has changed very little over the past century. Clay's father George grew up to become the first person in the family to receive a college degree. The hard work that drove George to succeed was prevalent in his son Clay.

Clay graduated from Tascosa High in Amarillo, TX where after he went on to receive his undergraduate degree in finance from Texas Tech University at Lubbock. Immediately following his graduation from college, Clay moved to Austin to attend the University of Texas Law School where he met and married his lovely wife Alisa.

After a short stint in Amarillo, Clay and Alisa moved to Washington, DC, where Clay began his political career working as a legislative assistant for a newly elected Representative from Texas, Mac Thornberry. While working in the House of Representatives, Clay spent a great deal of time working with energy policy. He worked in all aspects of energy legislation and played a key role in formulating and drafting the legislation which set up the National Nuclear Security Agency, NNSA. This experience made Clay a prime candidate for the position he would eventually assume upon his move to the Senate. Clay's work in the House of Representatives prepared him a great deal for his new job, but his new position required a greater understanding of national energy policy.

Over the past 4 years, I have gotten to know Clay and his wonderful family very well. Alisa and their two sons, Jack and Robert, have been Clay's stabilizing force. With another child on the way, that force will no doubt grow even stronger.

It has been my privilege to know and work with Mr. Clay Sell, but my words today are bittersweet. I do not feel that words alone can properly show my admiration for all that Clay has done for me, but I am confident that he understands how greatly he will be missed.

Mr. President, I want to make sure that the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee is aware of an issue of the utmost importance to the security of our Nation's homeland, namely the training of our Federal law enforcement officers who are charged with preventing, mitigating and investigating attacks on America.

We have hired a number of federal law enforcement officers since the events of September 11, and we, quite appropriately, continue to hire more. We fail the American people, however, if we don't give these men and women the training necessary to do the job we have asked of them.

Our responsibility does not stop there. We must retrain Federal law enforcement officers whose mission has changed since that fateful day. We must also commit to providing advanced training so these officers will have the most current knowledge and abilities as they take on this Herculean challenge.

We are fortunate to have state-of-the-art facilities for just these purposes located on Glynco, GA and Artesia, NM. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is charged with providing basic and advanced training to the law enforcement officers working for the Federal Government. Unfortunately, these facilities are not always efficiently used because there is no centralized authority responsible for the scheduling of training. I believe this problem is easily solved by placing this authority in the hands of the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Would the chairman be amenable to this idea and commit to working toward this goal?

I thank the distinguished Chairman for her consideration and support for our Federal law enforcement officers. I look forward to working with her to continue to strengthen our homeland security.

virginia military institute contribution to homeland security

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we currently on the Indian amendment of Senator Campbell?

I have cleared this on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside so we can conduct some business this evening. There are two or three amendments of substance that Senators would like to offer. Senator Campbell and Senator Bingaman have no objection to setting this aside.

Surely.

Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to Senator Durbin having the first amendment this evening. I just want to make sure we have an understanding about how long he might take and what will be next. There are a number of people who want to offer similar amendments. We understood the purpose tonight was to stay, even though it is late, so Senator Durbin might offer an amendment in the area of CAFE standards, and that two other Senators might follow.

Before I yield the floor, I ask if the Senator from Georgia wishes to ask something of the Senator from New Mexico, or does he want the floor?

He asked to speak as in morning business prior to the amendment. I have no objection.

We will then sit down. Certainly you can seek recognition.

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

Mr. President, I don't object. I don't know what is going on, but I understood we were yielding so Senator Durbin could offer an amendment. Now I understand there are two amendments.

I thank you.

If the Senator would like to get the floor, after 5 minutes yielded to the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from New Mexico asks the floor be returned to him so he can make brief opening remarks.

Mr. President, we have all been waiting for a long time. The minority has been telling us that we can't finish the Energy bill in 1 week starting on Monday and working for the entire week. Our distinguished majority leader has been telling us--at least 10 times-- that it won't be 1 week, it will be 1 week and whatever else it takes to finish it. He is sending a nice warning to all of us, as I see it, that we don't intend to put up with long delays. Nobody is offering the last phase of this Energy bill so that we can all have fun on the floor.

The idea is, if you want to recess, finish the Energy bill. I will do everything in my power to keep it right in focus. But I can't do much more than the rules permit me and the minority manager on that side will let me do. But I guarantee you that from our standpoint, there will be no efforts to go outside the scope of what is required to complete an Energy bill for the United States.

My colleagues know this is how the Senate works. We have scores of amendments listed on the so-called final list. But if anybody were to look at them in this country, they would say: What are you talking about? Those aren't amendments. That is right. They are not. It is just a list of words with numbers alongside them that Senators have put in.

I am looking at my friend from Illinois. Some Senators put 30 and 40 of them down. There is no intention to offer those kinds of amendments. We can finish this. The fact is there are 392 amendments. It doesn't mean a thing. As a matter of fact, we have put together a bipartisan electricity bill. It was circulated. I believe that bill alone might, by itself, take between 30 and 50 of the amendments on that so-called list. Those are the kinds of things that have been incorporated in this major electricity amendment.

While I am on it, let me suggest that if things work right, we should be on the electricity portion of this bill on Monday. Monday is a workday here, too, according to our leader. There is no holiday on Monday. Tomorrow is a workday, even though it is Friday.

Essentially, the bill that was submitted to everyone will have many cosponsors. It has been worked out over a long period of time with almost all the interests in the electrical future of our country as part and party to seeing the solution put together. We believe it represents a very wide scope of coverage, and that should be found acceptable. Certainly there will be amendments, and we will debate them. But the main bill should be found acceptable by an overwhelming majority.

In talking about what is really left in this bill, this huge bill--if we pass it and it goes to conference--will be the basis for America producing all kinds of energy for her future and jobs.

I think there are seven major issues left.

CAFE: My good friend from Illinois offered not two but one CAFE bill amendment tonight. He will get his turn. If not tonight, we are going to finish up CAFE in the morning. Other Senators have amendments also.

With cooperation, which I think we will get, our plan is to have the next one, and the next one, and the next one, with the Senator from Illinois reserving his right. If he wants to have his amendment voted on first, he is the first one up. We believe CAFE will be disposed of. Frankly, we believe it will be disposed of by Monday night. We don't intend to spring this on everyone. This requires everybody who can be here to be here. It looks as if that will be Monday afternoon sometime.

We think climate change will be offered by two or maybe three Senators. This Senator could make the point--but I think it will fall on deaf ears--that climate change doesn't belong in this bill. I don't think we have jurisdiction. I don't think it belongs in the Environment and Public Works bill. But we are going to get it anyway. We are very hopeful that can come up after CAFE.

I have explained electricity.

That makes three major items.

Then we have one that I thought was resolved between the distinguished Senator Craig and the ranking minority member, Senator Bingaman, on hydroelectric relicensing. But I understand it has not been resolved. So we had better list it as four in terms of serious amendments.

Fifth is an Indian energy issue. We just set it aside prior to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. It involves a serious discussion between the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, and the minority leader. Senator Bingaman wants to amend it. I understand the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, may also want to amend it, which would mean the Indian energy bill would have two amendments.

There is the longstanding, always recurring issue called renewable portfolio standards--the RPS. I don't know whether we call it a standard. But essentially it is an approach that says we are going to take some of this renewable energy supplied by wind and solar. Even though we are giving them plenty of incentives in this legislation, indeed wind is--it is kind of a strange way of saying it--coming on strong; there is no question but that it is. It has even been enough to show up on these various diagrams that talk about energy. We have given them all kinds of incentives.

But the idea is mandating that companies which produce electricity in our sovereign States have a percentage each year of the renewables. Thus, the renewable portfolio standard will be an issue.

That is as I see it. That is the sixth issue. I am aware of two amendments in that area; again, one from the distinguished Senator Bingaman, and one from the distinguished Senator Jeffords from Vermont.

Then everybody should know there sits on the sideline a package. It is called a tax package. The way we have been doing this on energy bills is: Those of us concerned with energy, we all go to the Finance Committee, which has total jurisdiction over taxes, including tax incentives, and we make our case, and they produce for us a package of tax incentives and tax legislation. They have done so again this year. That is ready.

At a point in time--let me suggest--I cannot predict exactly, but I am thinking some time about Wednesday or the latest Thursday--we would offer this tax package in its entirety to become part of this bill.

I know there are many Senators who are anxious to offer tax measures, and this tax package will be no different. It will be an opportunity, for those who want to offer tax amendments, to do so. Except I might suggest that the precedent, if you can count on it, has been that amendments that are not relevant to this package do not find themselves in this bill; that is, if somebody does not like the current state of play on the child tax credit, they may want to offer that on this bill that has incentives for windmills, incentives for biomass.

I can say, here and now, as manager of this bill, the rules are the rules. Senators' prerogatives are Senators' prerogatives, but I would ask--and I will ask in advance as many Senators as I can talk to--that we table any such amendments, and we keep the tax package to the energy package.

There will be some who want the Energy bill to pass, and they will quickly understand that is the right way to do it; and they will help. I don't know of any, so I am just talking. But there may be some who do not want us to finish by next Friday night or Saturday or Sunday or Monday--part of our vacation--and they may not like the idea of getting this tax package over with, and they may want to spend their recess debating taxes. I hope not because there are a lot of Senators around here who do not want to spend their recess debating taxes. They want to finish this bill and go home or go wherever their plans are.

I note that our leader is serious enough about this where he can be here an extra 3 days or 6 days before his plans take effect. Just to show us he is serious, that is what it looks like in his regard.

Let me tell my colleagues that it is 9:05 p.m. The minority has generously let us set aside the Indian amendment and offered the first CAFE amendment. I am hopeful that in a few minutes the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, will be here. I am hopeful he will seek to offer a CAFE standards amendment and that the other side will be as generous as we were and let him offer his without jeopardizing the CAFE amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois--just setting it aside temporarily while Senator Bond offers his.

Frankly, I do not see any reason after that occurs--unless somebody comes here with some business--to stick around very long. There have been many votes today. I am just as tired, if not more tired, than most of the Senators who have already left the premises. So I do not want to stay beyond the offering of the two CAFE amendments.

I say to Senators, there is great cooperation taking place. And tomorrow morning, if we can get the same cooperation, the distinguished Senator from Arizona intends to offer his CAFE amendment. I say to the Senator, as you know, he has been telling us about that amendment for quite some time. And then immediately after that, if everyone continues to be somewhat harmonious, there will be another modified CAFE amendment that will be offered by Senator Feinstein, joined by others, but I know joined by Senator McCain.

That will put us tomorrow, before noon, with four CAFE amendments of sorts--I say to the Senator, his being one kind and the last one I spoke to being another kind--all pending before the Senate. After they are pending, we can determine what voting on each one does, one to another. But until then, we will hope that each Senator, who is interested in what they will clearly tell us is one of their important issues, what they perceive to be very important; namely CAFE--they will have a chance to make their presentation, as I understand it.

Senator Bond will be here shortly. I say to the Senator, if you do not mind, without going into any detail, I have a Senator to take my place for the rest of the evening.

Death of Colin McMillan

Mr. President, I received word today, not too many hours ago, that one of our President's nominees to become Secretary of the Navy, Colin McMillan--some of my colleagues knew him; he would have been up here for confirmation shortly; he was a very good friend of mine for 35 years--he is dead. That is as much as I can say. And that is not a great way to start the evening.

One of my fellow Senators has told me that if I put in a brief quorum call, he will take my place and save enough time for Senator Bond, whom we have imposed upon to come down and offer his amendment.

I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I say to the Senator, if you don't mind, I would like a Republican to be here. If he will just tell me he wants to speak on his amendment--is that what the Senator wants to do?

I say to the Senator, when Senator Bond arrives, upon request, will the Senator from Illinois yield and let him offer his amendment?

Can we do that? Under those conditions, rather than suggest the absence of a quorum, I will relinquish the floor. Senator Durbin can start. Senator Bond will be here shortly, and a Senator will be here to replace me in short order.

Here is Senator Bond now.

I ask the Senator how long he thinks it will be before he is ready?

Let's proceed as we had planned and let the distinguished Senator from Missouri proceed next.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico ought to be doing the thanking. I knew when the people of the Senator's State sent him up here--he thanked us, but we ought to be thanking him; we thank the people of his State for sending him here--we knew when the Senator came that he was going to be a stalwart and someone to whom we could look. We knew we would be getting the ``straight scoop,'' so to speak. Tonight it didn't take the Senator very long to set this record straight.

There is no use playing politics with things that do not need any politics added to them. There are already plenty of problems surrounding that big tragedy that came to America. We thank the Senator for telling us the way it is, the way it was, and the way we ought to understand it. This Senator thanks him for that. I wish he had more to say. I hope before it is over, he will have more to say about it.

With all of the inferences and implications when things go wrong, there is a political campaign. Just wait, and somebody will find some reason to blame the person running for office. Regardless of how farfetched or how wild, or how irrelevant it is, it will be there.

Frankly, we have a Senate with lots of privileges. I like the distinguished Senator from Florida. He had a big job when he had to put that report together. He doesn't have any more to say about it than a lot of other people. He just happens to be running for President. So he has a lot to say. But we thank the Senator very much for his few words which are excellent, as I understand it, and it is something we needed to hear.

I hope so.