Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object.

I will have none. But when the matters that have just been agreed upon have been completed, we will then have another amendment on the Energy bill. It will be offered by the distinguished Democratic Senator from Florida with reference to an inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf assets, inventory that is provided for in the bill. He will move that be taken out. That will be debated tonight and voted on tomorrow.

I would like to comment, before we proceed, just a further 30 seconds?

We have been working very hard to get a complete list-- I think we are very close--of amendments we can agree to and put at the desk. As everybody knows, a lot is riding on this Energy bill: a full ethanol package; soon there will be the renewables that many are relying on in this country which have extenders that are required that are part of the tax amendments that are going to go on this bill. Those are providing for the existing--continuation of the renewables in the area of wind and Sun and others. If we do not get the bill moving, none of that moves along.

So I do ask all Senators who have amendments to concur that they can write them up, get them in, get them on this list so we know where we are and when we might look for daylight on this bill. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his cooperation. That is a true statement.

We are looking for a unanimous consent request that says in the morning 1 additional hour on that side, a half hour on our side on the Graham amendment, and afterwards there will be a vote. That is being prepared. In the meantime, the Graham amendment is going to be offered for discussion this evening.

I understand Senator Dole desires to speak on the same side. I don't intend to speak but for a moment. I will do my speaking and other members of the committee will be welcome to do so in the morning. I will take a couple of minutes and then yield to them for the evening.

As you well know, as you are a member of the energy committee, not too long ago the Senate of the United States said to this committee of Senators: Give us an energy policy for America's future, prepare a blueprint, a program, a policy, a set of activities that tells us what we ought to be doing for America's economic future, for our jobs, for our prosperity, as it relates to energy. We thought that if we did nothing else, perhaps that little mission meant we ought to find out what we have. What does America own?

We thought about it for a while and we said that is pretty simple. That is exactly what they would like us to do. They would like us to find out--even if we don't know what to do about it--what we have. What do we own? So a simple proposition was put in here, using the most modern techniques, disturbing nothing, to go out and find out how much oil and gas is in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States--the property marked by my good friend from Florida in green on his chart-- that we have already, as a nation, said based on today's circumstances we don't want to touch.

Does that mean we should not know what is there? The distinguished Senator from Florida says: We do know what is there. No, we do not know what is there because the most modern techniques are clearly changing what we know about what we own and what is underground. We do not have one of those most modern evaluations that has been put over that property that is within our control that could be used for America if we ever needed it and, I would even say, in a crisis.

As an ultimate reserve, should we not know what is there? That is the issue. It is, do we want to adopt an ostrich policy or do we want to adopt a policy of being on the surface, above board with our eyes open and know precisely what we are looking at? That is it. You can read the language. We will read it very precisely.

It matters not too much to this Senator from New Mexico what this Senate decides to do about this issue. It matters a lot to me as chairman of the Committee on Energy that I do what I was asked to do, and I thought I was asked to ask the committee members: Would you like to spend some American tax dollars to find out what we own so that it will be there in the inventory on the rack, so to speak, in the event something happened to America?

I thought the answer to that question was yes. We wrote it up, and we put the issue to the members. One member is sitting here, the new Senator from Tennessee. There was a rather large bipartisan vote on a simple proposition. Of course we want to know. Why would we want to stick our head in the sand and say we know there is oil there, we know there is gas there, but we do not want to use the most modern techniques to tell America what is there? As is going to happen tonight and tomorrow, there will be all this fear aroused that we are going to harm the sea line, the coastal shore, the beauty of America that is alongside these shores.

This says nothing about doing that, and everybody knows that we are not saying do anything whatsoever to these shorelines. What we are saying is, is it not, one, the responsibility of the committee to suggest to the Congress that we find out? I think the answer to that is unequivocal. Yes, we sure should.

Second, since you should have and you did, should the Senate now turn around and say you should have, you did, but we want to take it out, we want to throw it away, and we do not want to do it? That is the issue.

I sense that there is going to be enough fear established that people are going to be voting as if we are destroying something. Quite the contrary, I think we are doing something positive. I do not think we are destroying a thing. We are saying to folks: We have a lot of oil and gas out there. If the situation really gets bad--and what that might be, I do not know; none of us in this room knows--but if things got bad enough, there it is, and we know it is there, and it has been measured with the most modern-day techniques which are, indeed, not only marvels but they are marvelous in terms of what they will tell us about the capacity for the future.

Unless my friend from Tennessee wants to say a few words, I do not intend to spend any more time tonight. We will split our half hour tomorrow among three or four Senators from the committee in further response to the amendment that our distinguished friend from Florida has brought to the floor in a bipartisan manner with a lot of Senators.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow morning at 9:30, there then be 90 minutes of debate remaining prior to the vote in relation to the pending Graham amendment; provided further that Senator Graham or his designee be in control of 60 minutes and the chairman in control of the remaining 30 minutes. Further, I ask consent that following the use of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Either/or.

Parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct that there will be a vote on the Dorgan amendment at 11:30?

Mr. President, I ask to speak to that amendment until 11:30.

Mr. President, I have already spoken, as have Senator Alexander and others, against this amendment. By being against the amendment, it does not mean we are in any way in derogation of the efforts by the distinguished Senator, Mr. Dorgan, in his efforts to pursue a hydrogen economy for the United States, in his efforts to move forward with the hydrogen cell and with the hydrogen car. I compliment him for that.

His amendment, which says we should move ahead with certain quotas, with specific amounts, with goals, with mandatory achievements, should not be done. It would not be of any benefit.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12:15 be equally divided in the usual form for debate in relation to the Landrieu-Domenici amendment; provided, further, that at 12:15 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and, finally, that following the vote the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

We have no objection.

Mr. President, I add 5 minutes to the time in the request, with the Senator from Pennsylvania having that 5 minutes. The vote would occur at 12:20.

I am sorry, we did not know that, I say to the Senator. We would have asked you.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of what we are going to call the Landrieu-Domenici amendment. I note the presence of Senator Alexander who was one of the original Senators who spoke to this matter on the floor. I hope in the remaining time he gets a chance to speak. Let me say there are a lot of people who come up with new formulas, attempt to set new formulas on automobiles, on the mileage that cars will have, and the like. None of them seem to work, and none of them seem to get through this body. This is an ingenious idea of my friend from Louisiana who has been extremely helpful in getting an Energy bill passed. I think when we pass it in a few weeks, and we will, she can take a great deal of pleasure in knowing that much of it was due to her interest, enthusiasm, and support.

I hope we will vote for it unanimously, saying to our President, find ways to do this. I believe it is the best way for the Senate to handle it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back the time I have. I might say to Senators, we tried very hard to get the vote within 15 minutes last time. I was asked by a number of Senators to please try to do that on the votes. I have no authority to say that will be the rule, but as the floor manager, we have a 15-minute rollcall vote on this amendment. It is a simple one. It is not too hard to find your way to the floor. I trust that in 15 minutes we will have disposed of this.

In the meantime, before that occurs, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate convenes at 2:15, the pending amendment be set aside and that Senator Wyden be recognized to offer the nuclear commercial plant amendment under the debate limitation which was agreed to last week.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might speak with the distinguished Senator from Oregon about the

final vote. We are wondering, from our side, for no reasons other than time--the more time we have left, the more we might get done--whether we might be able to vote at 3:45 instead of 4:15, saving half an hour. We would be delighted to not ask the Senator to give up very much of that time but I wonder if he would consider a consent agreement for 3:45, which will give us, instead of our hour, 40 minutes, and what is left would belong to the Senator, or 35 minutes. Would that be fair enough for the Senator?

Sure.

Let's not agree. Let's put that before them as a possibility. Right now we are exploring the notion of voting at 3:45 instead of 4:15. If we did that, we would allocate the time away from each hour in order to get there. In the meantime, we will both ask our cloakrooms if there is any problems with any Senators. The Senator from Oregon will do it on his side and I will do it on mine.

Mr. President, I assume I can speak at this point; I have the floor?

I would be pleased to yield.

For the benefit of the Senators who would like to speak, Senator Alexander has indicated a desire to speak for a few moments. He is here. Senator Voinovich, who occupies the chair, desires to speak; Senator Landrieu, from the other side of the aisle, desires to speak. Senator Inhofe and Senator Larry Craig.

I say to all of them, if they would let us know through the cloakroom, we will try to put some times opposite their names. We will be using 4 as kind of our scheduling time to see what we can do about setting up a time.

Would the Senator from Tennessee like to speak at this time or would he rather that the Senator from New Mexico speak for a few moments?

I thank the Senator. I will try to be brief.

My colleagues know I have been in the Senate 31 years and that for the better part of that time I spent my time on energy matters but principally, from the standpoint of the floor of the Senate, I was known as the person who handled the budget for the Senate. That is where I had the luxury and privilege of meeting the distinguished Senator, who opposes me on the floor, Mr. Wyden, and many others who serve with me. In fact, that is where I became a very good friend of the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, who served, as the Senator might recall, on that Budget Committee way down at the end of the Republican side. One of the Senators who served for most of that time, that the Senator from Oregon will recognize and remember, was probably one of the most astute and knowledgeable Senators who we have both had the luxury of knowing. We might both put some other attributes along with those but he was that, and that was Senator Gramm of Texas.

One day I was exploring a matter with the Senator from Texas. I said: Senator, you know I have been on this Budget Committee for so long, and I am thinking about moving over to the Energy Committee where I have been in the second position for all of these years. You are from Texas and I noticed you never did bother to even get on the Energy Committee.

He said: Yes, that is right.

I said: Why is that?

Listen carefully. He said: Senator Pete, energy is one of the most difficult things to do anything about, nigh on impossible to effect by law any real policy regarding energy, if you are talking about advanced policy that has any impact.

I said: Well, Senator Gramm, I might agree with you but--and before I could finish he said: However, I would like to correct that and say one thing to you.

Now, this was 5 years ago.

Senator Domenici, there is indeed a probability that you can do something if you take over the Energy Committee, and I tell you for sure there is only one thing and that is to reestablish nuclear power as an option for these United States and the world.

I wish he were here. I am not quoting him exactly so do not put it in quotes, but he would remember that.

When I decided to take this job and give up the Budget Committee, I remembered that and I even told my wife, when discussing at home my next few years in the Senate, that some pretty good people think I am taking on a committee that does not have a lot of potential because energy is too tough to legislate and make policy about. It just sort of happens, except for that rascal nuclear power.

Well, he said it. He may not be right but I am trying to prove him right in this debate today and in this Energy bill that we are going to try to finish this week, perhaps with 1 additional week.

On May 21 of this year, Alan Greenspan, speaking to the House Energy Committee, said: If we're going to continue to expand our energy base, we're going to have to be starting to look at nuclear power as a potential reservoir of new sources of energy which are not available by other means.

He continues: I think that we ought to be spending more money and more time looking and contemplating the issue of nuclear power since natural gas is a serious problem.

This morning I happened to hear a talk show with typical Americans calling talking about energy. It was rather nice to hear people from Oklahoma City, from somewhere in Tennessee, California, Oregon, obviously average citizens who were calling in on a radio show asking questions. Most questions had to do with, why don't we have more natural gas? Finally someone asked, aren't there other things we can use? What about nuclear power? Of course, as one might suspect, the answers were rather muddled.

The real question now before this institution is, can nuclear power, held in abeyance for about 14 to 16 years in the United States while Japan built new facilities, the country of France is 80 percent dependent upon nuclear power, a little country like Taiwan, which is booming, is currently constructing two facilities with General Electric engineering and design--I cannot recall the name of the contractor. And the United States sits with everybody saying it is almost impossible. With the exponential growth in electricity needs, where we all expect to use natural gas in the burners, to create the heat and electricity, it is nearly impossible that we will have enough natural gas. It is not a question of whether we have a lot of it. It is a question that we do not use anything else because we are frightened to death of using anything else.

Some in this country, a small group, have scared us to death about nuclear power. When we add up all the energy produced by nuclear power in the world, including the terrible accident in Russia, which was attributable to a very old-fashioned nuclear powerplant that we would not dare license in America, add these together and nuclear power has been safer than any of the other power sources combined--be it coal or any other--save and except for energy produced by dams. I am speaking of large quantities. Certainly, if we speak of windmills, we speak of solar, we can produce clean energy.

Having said that, the issue before the Senate today is, do we want to support a committee that put together a bill that said, fellow Americans, the time has come to quit playing around with energy and do something about a myriad of sources. And to say, wherever you can, we are going to produce more energy.

We have tried to produce or cause to be produced every natural gas source we know of that had impediments. If it was too deep, we gave it a benefit of some sort so it could get taken out, anyway. If it was too far away in the ice lands of Alaska, we gave those companies something so they could get it down here. If it is coal, we said subsidize.

They are talking that we should not be granting a loan guarantee, presumably at market value, to a first-class company that might want to take a risk at building a powerplant. They are saying we should not do that. But when it comes to coal, we are going to spend over $2 billion on pure research to try to get to that miracle place of clean coal.

We did not say, my, you just should not put your tax dollars in a big waste.

Last but not least, while our opponents will find this is not relevant, we already have a subsidy for wind energy, those 50-foot-tall windmills. Without the new one contemplated to be added to this bill, that has the potential of producing 245,000 windmills, equivalent source of energy. The powerplants we contemplate lending money to, or offering a loan guarantee, the same amount. Guess how much the taxpayer will have given if that occurs. Thirty-one billion is the direct source for those windmills.

Now, the opposition to ours might say, but you are going to get windmills. When you say to the American power industry, if you want to come along and try to build a new nuclear powerplant, modern type, you have to go get your money, you have to take all the risks, and we will underwrite half of it with a loan, they would have us say that is a terrible risk even if it is only $2 billion to $5 billion. But that $31 billion that might occur for windmills is not? Of course, the windmill is not a risk, but it certainly is throwing your money at something that most Americans would wonder seriously about.

Having said that, this Senator is not against any of the sources. I think we will win today. When we win, we will go to conference eventually and come out with a major new impetus for nuclear power in this country. For the first time somebody is going to say, let us build one or two new nuclear powerplants. And the greenhouse gas issue that has been raised will not be there because there is no pollution from those two plants that I have just described, if they come into being-- none. Zero. Absolutely clean.

We are going to have to find some way to take care of the waste someday. If we want to have a debate here today, or next week, on the waste, suffice it to say that the United States has scared herself silly about waste. Waste is nothing but a technical problem. If you want to go see all the waste in France, get a ticket and go to a city, ask them where it is, and they will take you to a building, and you can go see it all.

You might say: Who would want to see it?

They will just take you to a building that looks like a schoolhouse. You walk in and say: Can I see the waste? And they will say: You are walking on it. They will say: Just take a look down.

You look down. It looks like glass, and there sits the waste, encapsulated, and it will be there for as long as 50 years, if that is what is needed by the French scientists to find out how to put it away or how to reuse it.

Here we sit fooling around because somebody convinced us we ought to become immobilized, when it comes to an alternative, until we have a hole in the ground so deep, so big, in such hard rock that we can figure out, way in advance, a way to put the waste in it and monitor it with calculators and say to America and the world: We just monitored it, and we can tell you there will be no radiation for 10,000 years.

That is the test because we want to be so careful we don't hurt anybody ever. The test of the technology that is going to have to monitor that--and you can hardly draw the plans, it is such an absurdity--is 10,000 years.

Having said all that, we are back to a simple proposition: Do you or do you not want to let the Energy Committee go to a conference with the House and to take with it a bill that says: All the rest of these energies get their help: Biomass gets its assistance, coal gets its help, the renewables are helped immeasurably with tax assistance, every single thing we know how to do to produce more oil and gas is done-- right?

I could go on and on. That is all going to be there. But also in the event--and I am looking for the language in the statute as to when the Secretary can issue these--we have statutory language that says, very simply--and I will read it and close:

Subject to the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform

Act [et cetera, et cetera, et cetera], the Secretary may,

subject to appropriations, make available to project

developers for eligible project costs such financial

assistance as the Secretary determines is necessary to

supplement private-sector financing for projects if he

determines that such projects are needed to contribute to

energy security, fuel or technology diversity, or clean air

attainment goals. The Secretary shall prescribe such terms or

conditions for financial assistance as the Secretary deems

necessary. . . .

That then is provided as up to 50 percent of the cost, by way of a loan.

Frankly, it is all a question of risks. It is not a question of philosophy. It is not a question of whose party wants to get on what slope, a slope of entrepreneurship or a slope of guaranteeship. All of that is meaningless. What this is about is: Is it worth this little risk we are speaking of--to get what I just described going again for America?

I say, overwhelmingly, absolutely, positively, yes. I do hope, come that vote time, there will not be 50 Senators, or half of those who vote today, who will say we want to strike this and kill this opportunity for America.

With that, I will yield the floor to Senator Alexander for his time.

Senator Landrieu, are you on some time frame that is urgent?

I yield to him and then to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the pending amendment occur at 3:50 with the remaining time to be divided with 20 minutes for the proponents and 10 minutes under the control of the opponents.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New Mexico have?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

No, I would not.

Mr. President, I have been asked because of other people--not me--that we commence this vote at 3:45. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

I say to the Senator, they want a vote at 3:45, so we don't need any time. He can have 3 minutes and you can close.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator could do me one favor. Let Senator Graham have 1 minute. Then you wind up with the time you have, the same time you have.

We don't need to have the Senator speak. Go ahead.

We cannot do that.

It is not me. I have just been told, after instructions from the leadership.

You don't have a couple minutes.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank all Members for debate and votes.

I believe the Indian amendment of the Senator from Colorado is next.

Amendment No. 864 Withdrawn

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

Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator Dorgan. I understand he will shortly, at his disposal, offer some amendments with reference to hydrogen; is that correct?

And the occupant of the Chair will be finished at 2 o'clock and will manage the bill for a while for us during the time he is discussing his, and we will perhaps speak in opposition. In any event, the Senator from New Mexico will also do that. I may be gone for just a while. I have a statement with reference to some of the support that has been forthcoming over the weekend that I want to read into the record so Senators are aware of where the various groups in our country are with reference to the amendment to strike the loan guarantees that are pending under the bill, S. 14. I will do that and then I will yield the floor. It won't take me very long.

I am grateful that so broad a coalition of interest groups has been willing to send letters supporting the nuclear loan guarantee provisions in the Energy bill. I do not intend today to go into detail analyzing the relevance and significance of these loan guarantees and what I see as the fallacious nature of the arguments against them but merely to state the broad support at this point for the proposal.

No one is surprised that provisions in this bill are strongly supported by the utilities and groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute, but today on my desk I found letters from unions, academics, and broad groups from industry. To some extent, that was a surprise. I greatly appreciate their support and want to spend a few moments going over their reasons for supporting this measure, which I consider to be so important for our country. One is a letter from John Duetch.

I don't think I have to explain to the Senate who John Deutch is. In terms of physics, energy, and nuclear energy matters, he is a ranking expert. He is perhaps the James Schlesinger of the Democratic Party. His letter is accompanied by a Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, well known in academic circles, named Ernie Munis. For those who are not familiar, he served as the head of the nuclear part of the Department of Energy during the Democratic administrations preceding the Republicans during the last 12 years.

Munis joins Dr. Deutch and they concurrently chair an MIT-sponsored study on the future of nuclear power.

I note the presence of the junior Senator from New Mexico and minority manager. All I have done so far is talk about some support, and the letter I am alluding to he is aware of.

I met with Drs. Deutch and Munis last week and asked for their views on the nuclear loan guarantee provisions in the bill. Their letter reads:

We believe such assistance is important and justified, and

that action taken now will influence future investment

decisions on nuclear power generation.

In fact, they propose what some would consider to be an even more direct subsidy for new nuclear powerplants. Their letter explains:

The mechanism [they] propose for this assistance is a

production tax credit of 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour up to a

total of $200 million per 1000 megawatt plant.

We did not do that in the bill. We had contemplated it at various times during the evolution of the legislation and thought for different reasons that the loan guarantee might be preferable. We now have a letter that says either of the two would be good, and for the first time two very powerful people say both would be good for our country.

I received letters today from the AFL-CIO, and I am most grateful for their support because I know it is not always easy for groups to support matters that pertain to nuclear power. I believe, as we have been saying for a number of days, nuclear power has arrived. The question is, How will it come on the scene so that America and the world can find out, once again, what it is all about.

I do know without a doubt that if a bill is going to be good for the American economy by creating jobs at home, the AFL-CIO will back it. I am grateful they are doing so today.

One of the letters from the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO says:

The fifteen unions comprising the Building and Construction

Department consider nuclear power an integral, emission-free

component in a broad array of national energy choices. And,

not unlike the current state of Federal transportation and

water systems, our domestic energy infrastructure is in need

of a serious upgrade and American workers are in dire need of

the jobs created.

The construction of these new plants will create

significant employment opportunities for our highly skilled

members. The construction of just one new nuclear power plant

would stimulate the economy by creating between 2,000 and

3,000 family wage construction jobs. And, maintaining and

operating that plant would create an additional 1,000-1,500

permanent, full-time, high paying jobs.

The other letter I received was from the Metal Trades Department. It reads in part:

On behalf of the AFL-CIO Metal Trade Department, I urge you

to support provisions in the pending energy policy

legislation that would enable the construction of new nuclear

power plants in the U.S.

America's power demands are growing exponentially. A

rational and effective energy policy depends upon a diverse

mix of fuels and technologies, including nuclear fuel. The

health of the nation's economy will require the construction

of new nuclear facilities to ensure adequate power resources.

Loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants are a critical

element of the energy legislation. We urge you to support

them.

Letters will be forthcoming and will be circulated to Senators. I could not have said it better myself had I been preparing a speech. Rather than the numerous ad lib comments I made heretofore, I could not have said better what has been said by those who write in behalf of the working men and women who need good jobs and who have great skills that can put together these needed facilities. The Chamber of Commerce sent one of its key vote alerts about the Wyden-Sununu amendment. The Chamber is straightforward:

Our Nation's economic vitality and energy security rely

upon the ability to utilize a diverse array of fuels and

technology to generate electricity. Nuclear energy plays a

vital role in assuring this diversity, producing some twenty

percent of the country's electricity. Resources for research

and development of energy sources ranging from clean coal and

geothermal to wind and even fusion are provided by S. 14. To

eliminate support for any of these sources would be near-

sighted and risk energy stability in the years to come,

perhaps leading to devastating economic effects.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you to vote against the

Wyden-Sununu amendment to S. 14.

Mr. President, the National Electro-Industry Manufacturing Association issued a press release today that certainly sums up my position and, hopefully, the position of many in the Senate. In the press release they say:

The reliability and security of our nation's energy supply

requires us to have a diverse energy portfolio, including

nuclear power.

Votes against incentives, particularly loan guarantees, are a

vote against reliable, low cost, stable, and environmentally

friendly energy supplies. It is also a vote against jobs and

a stronger economy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

First, please excuse my voice. I have somewhat of a cold. I say to the occupant of the chair, it will be in good form tomorrow. Do not worry. Having said that, I compliment the Senator from Idaho on the wonderful explanation he has given today on the future of hydrogen in the American economy. I also thank Senator Dorgan. Not only this year but before, he has been a strong proponent of moving ahead as rapidly as we can with the hydrogen alternative, the fuel cell, and ultimately an automobile in our future.

Today, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment which will now line itself up with a couple of others and perhaps be the third amendment voted on tomorrow. For that, I thank him because he brought an amendment to the floor which means we are moving.

I ask the Senator a question: The hydrogen car which I rode around in, as did the Senator, does the Senator remember how much they told us it cost?

I do not say that to in any way belittle anybody, but the point of it is, they wanted to show us what it would look like, what the storage capacity or needs on the rear of this vehicle might be, which meant somebody would have some idea how to refuel it later on, and to put all of that together they spent 6 million-plus dollars.

The point of it is, S. 14, which I am very proud of, is an effort to produce a myriad of energies for America so that there will be a choice. It also says when it comes to hydrogen, let's pursue it with vigor. Let's get on with the research. Let's get the fuel cells moving ahead as rapidly as possible. And, yes, for the first time we had a President say go ahead and authorize a lot of money, $1.6 billion, to enter into partnership arrangements with the automobile manufacturers to see if our science and their technology could get married up with their money and taxpayers' money to pursue this with some degree of vigor.

I do not think I am trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in terms of the issue, but to now say, in the midst of all of this, to prove we are serious about this let's go ahead and mandate a purchase of these automobiles by a date certain it seems to me to be a bit premature. I do not think we need it to prove our worth, to prove our valor, to prove that we really want to move ahead with vigor. Quite to the contrary, I think it might indicate that we really are a little bit ahead of ourselves.

So when the time comes tomorrow, after discussing it with Senators such as Senator Craig, the Senator from New Mexico will decide whether we will have just a straight yes or no vote or whether we should ask the Senate to table what we consider to be a rather inappropriate amendment because it is too early.

As far as I know, there is no other business today. We are waiting around for the Dorgan amendment to get itself lined up with two amendments that are scheduled for tomorrow. There is still some significant debate on the motion to strike that concerns itself with nuclear power and on the so-called authority to the Indian tribes for the development of their energy. There are two amendments. One is Senator Campbell's amendment, and one is Senator Bingaman's amendment. One is a first degree, and a second degree. Those will be debated, and then sometime tomorrow, hopefully, we can prove to the Senate that we are moving ahead with three votes.

I am going to say now to other Senators who may have amendments, whatever they may be, the majority leader has been pretty fair with us. I am not so sure we have been quite that fair with him in that we have not produced enough amendments, although we are getting there now. We are starting to get a few of the hot button items, and maybe after tomorrow we might be at a point where others will come forth. I am asking now that Senators and their staffs, who consider themselves to have amendment potential on this bill, they should start to get ready. I am aware there are Senators who have amendments. We know the title of their amendments, but the amendments are not ready yet. That is 2 weeks now, not solid but more or less we have had 2 weeks.

So we ask now that Senators reconsider getting on with this so they can be helpful as we move ahead, and then with the minority soon we will begin to ask for some times. Maybe by tomorrow we can start asking for a time certain for the production of relevant amendments. That would be my hope, I say to my friend Senator Craig and the occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Sununu.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment. We have no objection to the studies provided for in the amendment. We think they will be worthwhile and helpful, so we have no objection.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Bingaman, have you finished with that issue?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed as in morning business for no longer than 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business starting in 5 minutes and not to exceed 10 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5 minutes I asked to transpire before the time started be waived and that I be able to proceed with my 7 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I understand, from my parliamentary inquiry, that at 5:15 the Senate resumes executive calendar debate.

I ask unanimous consent that we be in morning business until we go into executive session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, in the United States, especially when you live in the eastern United States, you take water and the availability of water for granted. Probably the only thing that is ever thought about is: Do we have a big enough reservoir? Or are those aqueducts getting too old that feed New York and northeastern America?

But I am here to suggest there are parts of these great United States where there is a huge shortage of the kind of water we need day by day for our daily activities: to drink, to use for our families, and for the everyday use of our people.

First, I show you a little chart with blue and white areas on it. All of the blue areas on this chart of the United States, believe it or not, are areas in these United States where saline--that is, salty-- aquifers exist; that is, salty water either in large ponds or underground in large pools.

So while we are running out of water, at the same time we have been blessed in that we have plenty of water available if we do something about it. And I propose that we do something about it. I have a bill that I hope will do something about it.

This second chart shows what would be a proposed Tularosa Basin desalination facility. I show it because this is not a new concept. As a matter of fact, this Tularosa Basin is a huge underground water basin in New Mexico. Much of it is very salty, large quantities are not so salty, and then large quantities are of minor salt content.

The legislation I am introducing is to try to make a leap of technology for it directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake at this program, for lack of a better way to do it, what we call a demonstration program, but it would be one that would be easily adopted anywhere. We ask that it have a capability of 100,000 gallons so that the research would not be carried out at an academic level but really usable.

The Secretary is supposed to work with the greatest laboratories in the Nation that have access in this regard to develop new desalination technology and a plan. The facility should be completed within 3 years. The water from this facility will be disposed of to communities in and around this basin and in and around the county of Otero. We authorize the money necessary for it. I have a detailed statement indicating why we are doing this along with the bill and an extra bill which goes to the desk, one for reference and one for retention.

I am quite confident that a new method of desalination beyond that one that we all hear about is going to be forthcoming. I believe one of the laboratories--probably Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, but not certain, but probably--will make the breakthrough so that we will not be using the old system that we might have been trying for as long now as the occupant of the chair is of age. I even remember that system being used when I first came to the Senate. We were experimenting with it in the city of Roswell under a Government program, and we stopped the program because it was too farfetched.

We have come a long way. Just as we have serious problems cleaning water of other pollutants, and we have old-fashioned ways of doing it, very modern technology is being applied. As an example, we all know there is a big problem in some parts of America where arsenic which is found in the normal topography, normal ground of the surrounding area and has been consumed by whoever lived there for years with no harm--we are going to have to remove it now to some very minuscule content per thousand gallons. In order to do that the old-fashioned way, the costs are enormous. But believe it or not, because of science, we might be able to do that job--albeit some of it should not have to be done at all--for a tenth of the cost.

We are hopeful that same new breed of technology will apply to taking salt out of inland water or ocean water.

Mr. President, as I say, I rise today to introduce a bill that has the potential to supply vast quantities of water to a thirsty New Mexico and a number of Western States. New Mexico and the West face a critical lack of water, but through the program contained in my bill, the faucets could be ready to flow.

Most Western States already have large quantities of water. However, the water contains such high levels of salt that it is simply unusable. My bill proposes to turn untapped resource into potable water that cities, towns, farmers, industry, and nature can use to meet their needs. This bill provides the opportunity for use to utilize brand new technology that may save the West.

This piece of legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a desalination demonstration program in the Tularosa Basin located in southern New Mexico. Additionally, it requires collaboration between the Bureau of Reclamation, an established leader in desalination research and development, and the Department of Energy. Our national laboratories are at the forefront of science in many areas including water technology. The collaboration between these two departments would bring together the best minds and the most experienced technicians. This bill would further task the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy with evaluating current technology, advising on how to proceed with additional research, developing a research plan and confirming project and operation costs in a real-world application. Finally, the bill authorizes the building of a facility where advances in technology could be tested.

The bill authorizes appropriations of $1.5 million for development of a desalination technology plan which will utilize the experiences of present facilities and programs to build the facility and guide its research. It further authorizes $30 million to construct the desalination facility, $6 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010 for research programs at Sandia National Lab associated with the facility, and $10 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2010 for research and development of desalination technologies.

Only 3 percent of the world's water is fresh and much of that is stored in the ice that caps the Earth's poles. We must develop the technology to economically utilize the rest of that water. Today, most of the world's desalination plants are applied to sea water. As I states before, much of the west and, indeed, the Nation, sits on saline aquifers. The facility I propose will develop and test the technologies to best access and utilize this inland water.

Currently, Sandia National Lab and the Department of the Interior are looking for optimum sites to locate the facility and are developing a feasibility study for the program. The sites are all in or around the city of Alamogordo, NM. The designers envision a 13,000 square foot facility that can process up

to 100,000 gallons of water per day. It will draw researchers from around the country and play an essential role in alleviating the pressures on our water resources.

Mr. President, let me also say that I have a broader vision for what can be accomplished with desalination. This is only the first step. This is a serious issue, not only for New Mexico, but the world. More than half the world's population will face severe water shortages in the next 50 years. We must get started on this problem.

I have no doubt that this legislation will help to push forward the state of the art to ensure that we have access to the most precious of resources. Let's take the first step.

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

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

Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from California who has just offered an amendment which expands the substances that can be used for ethanol conversion. I am willing to accept the amendment. I favor the amendment. I understand the distinguished minority manager would like to speak on the subject at this point.

Yes, I say to the Senator, I will do my very best. I indicated that to you and I will do my very best. I make that commitment to you.

Yes.

That is correct.

We have no objection to setting it aside.

At this point it looks as if we are not going to vote on anything until about 3, and the Boxer amendment would be second or third in line.

Unless the Senator wants to seek that consent at this point, there is no such arrangement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, with the consent of the minority, I make the following unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that-- I withhold until the minority whip is present, 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, now I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment No. 853, to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 856, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 854; provided further that following those votes the Senate proceed immediately to a vote on the adoption of amendment No. 850, without further intervening action or debate.

For the information of the Senate, I might indicate that the second of the Boxer amendments, which had been listed in the unanimous consent, is probably not going to require a rollcall vote but will be adopted by voice. Immediately after that, the underlying ethanol amendment will be voted on, and a rollcall vote is being required on that.

The Senator from New Mexico, the manager of the bill, intends when appropriate, when matters have been agreed on between the leadership, that we can proceed to offer an Indian amendment, which I think then would be followed by a second-degree amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, the minority manager of the bill.

We are also pursuing with a degree of vigor an effort to see if we cannot get Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy to agree to work out the LIHEAP portion of this bill. There are two amendments there. If they are able to work that out, that will put us in a position where we will dispose of that entire matter sometime this afternoon, hopefully. It seems they are very close to working that out, if the Senator is.

In any event, I am pursuing them so that there will be a vote. Sooner or later we would like to dispose of it. If they insist, they can have a vote on the first part of theirs. If they win or lose, that leaves you in a position of whether you have the amendment on this bill or not, depending upon the disposition of the first, the amendment that precedes it, both of which have been set aside by consent and are pending action by the Senate.

I see my friend Senator Wyden on the floor. I know we had been talking about a proposed agreement with reference to a matter on nuclear power. Let me suggest to the Senator, we are in accord as to that. We will enter into it but not at this point. We are examining the language carefully. But you have our assurance that at an appropriate time today that agreement will be entered into and then we will be ready to have a very important vote sometime on the day of Tuesday with reference to nuclear power, with you being a proponent of a motion to strike.

Mr. President, we will have a great deal of time to discuss what I believe is the most important issue for America's future; that is, are we going to have an alternate source of energy for electricity, aside and apart from coal and natural gas?

I believe the time has come. We ought to set in motion the authorization--not the approval, not the appropriations, but the authorization--to start down the path that says the United States may be ready to build a nuclear powerplant. The arguments that have just been made in anticipation of the agreement are not exactly as such. This bill says America should have an opportunity to have a variety of energy sources. We have provided subsidies for coal so that coal can be made clean and delivered to our people as clean as possible. That is subsidized. We have an enormous tax subsidy for wind and energy. In fact, it is so big and so current that there will be windmills built all over this country, and the amount is a direct tax credit. It is not something that may happen. Every time one of those windmills is built, the tax credit will apply and money will be used in large quantities.

In addition, we are talking about whether nuclear powerplants are being built today. For instance, General Electric nuclear powerplants are being designed and built in Taiwan right now at a cost--believe it or not, and which we will show here to the Senate--that belies all of the information that is submitted by the Congressional Budget Office, which we believe is speculative. It will be shown that they are constructing these nuclear powerplants at $1,250 a kilowatt. That means they are perilously close today to producing nuclear powerplants that will be competitive with natural gas in the United States.

We are not asking the Senate for any of this to happen. We are saying that, as a matter of policy, we should put in the Energy bill the opportunity for this to happen. We will go into great detail as to the conditions, how it will happen, how it won't happen, and who has to approve and who has to disapprove.

We think before we are finished, we will have convinced a majority of Senators that the time has come to give a rebirth to this alternative source so that if, as a matter of fact, in the next decade or so the need arises, we will be ready, willing, and able to move ahead.

Having said that, I have just indicated nothing else is going to happen in the Senate until sometime around 3 o'clock or 3:30. We will try to get our unanimous consent agreement sometime this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am quite sure that before we are finished--if we finish, and I hope we will--the Senate and those who are interested in energy policy will hear a lot about the various kinds of energy that are provided, as a matter of policy, in this Energy bill.

I am having a lot of difficulty understanding the Senate these days. I regret to say that almost every amendment we talk about some Senator is unable to be present. It is either they had to leave early or they had a previous engagement or there is something else they had to do. So it seems as if we cannot get the amendments done. But the Democrats are going to help us try to convince Senators that

they ought to start to list their amendments soon so we will have some idea, sooner rather than later, the extent of amendments we are going to have on this bill.

On the issue of nuclear power, before we are finished with this debate, we will lay before the Senate what the Energy Committee, in its markup of this bill, did so as to make sure the United States had an array of energy sources during the next 10, 20, and 30 years.

We have tax credits for solar energy. We have tax credits for wind energy. The Senator argues that is different. Well, maybe we ought to change and have just plain tax credits for nuclear power. Maybe there would be no objection to it. Perhaps we could convert what we thought was a better way to do this to some kind of a tax credit, which would mean that if they produced, and only if they produced, would they get any credit.

What we did in the instance of nuclear power was to say if the Secretary of Energy, at some time, finds that the United States needs a nuclear powerplant because it needs a diversity of energy or it needs it because there is some clean air problem, then to a creditworthy applicant, a creditworthy builder, of a nuclear powerplant, they may subsidize half the cost with a guaranteed loan.

Now, one can talk about that in terms of how much that is going to cost. The Senator from New Mexico assumes we look at all of these from the standpoint of the benefits, what are the benefits to America?

Twelve years ago, this Senator started looking at nuclear power. With the passage of each year, as I studied it and wrote about it and thought about it, I became more embarrassed and more ashamed of what the United States of America had done with this superb technology that we had invented, that was being used in the world and that we had set on the shelf because a few people frightened us to death.

Do people know that today two nuclear powerplants are being built in Taiwan? They are building a modern, General Electric design. Guess what they tell us the cost is going to be. In fact, I believe we will introduce a letter next week during the argument. The costs will be very close to the equivalent costs of what we are now paying to build natural gas burned, natural gas fed, powerplants. Who would have thought it?

What has happened is, since natural gas is the singular source of energy, the cost is skyrocketing because there is no competition. We intend there to be competition, not only from nuclear but we have ample money in this bill for great research in coal, too. We have over $2 billion in research for clean coal. It does not produce any coal. It just says do the research to try to make technology work.

What we have done overall for the first time in the last 20 years is to say, let us develop a nuclear policy for the greatest nation on Earth and let us show the world that we have not abandoned the safest way to produce energy, electricity for people in the world. Let us show that we are not abandoning that. Let us show that we are going to lead again. And so there is a three-pronged policy. The Price-Anderson Act, which makes it possible for the private sector to be involved, is made permanent.

This bill says, let's build a demonstration project in the State of Idaho, a brandnew concept, so we will build a nuclear powerplant that will be passive. By passive, we mean we will prove it cannot burn. There are people who speculate a nuclear powerplant can burn. They have spoken of its burning its way through the earth. This new powerplant will be physically made so it is passive. It will produce high enough temperatures so you can produce hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy we are looking at.

America is close to being able to build a nuclear powerplant again, like they are being built in Taiwan, like they have been built year after year in France. France produces 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They do not run around frightened to death of technology like the United States. If anyone wants to see France's nuclear waste, they will take you to a gymnasium. You can walk into the gymnasium, like walking into a school, and walk on a glass floor. One might ask, where is the waste? You are walking on it. It is encapsulated for 50 years at least, and nothing can happen to it while they figure out what to do with it.

What does the greatest nation on Earth do? We sit paralyzed, waiting around for something to happen in Nevada. I am sure we will hear that argument before we finish the debate next Tuesday. We know that is an engineering issue that will be solved.

What we do not know: Will the United States continue to remain dependent upon natural gas almost exclusively or will we say it may be time for American companies to build one or two nuclear powerplants? We understand they are very close. They have experienced litigation and other impediments. It is hard to get over the hurdle, over the hump. We have asked, what would it take to start a couple of them? What a day, when America starts a couple new nuclear powerplants. We would be entering an era of cheap electricity, available to everyone, poor countries and rich countries. Guess what. There will be no pollution problem. The ambient air will be affected zero.

We knew it was worth the effort to get America going again regarding its strength and power as the inventor of the safest energy ever produced by mankind to this point. We could have put in tax credits: If you produce something, we will give you a tax credit. Then our friends would not be making the argument; you are giving them something before they produce. We chose what we thought was most simple and least expensive to the Federal Government, saying, if necessary, you can give them half the costs in a loan guarantee, to get us going again.

That is the whole issue. Should we do that or should we not do that? Before we are finished, the Senate will understand, in spite of it having difficulty with this Energy bill--we cannot seem to get people to focus on the Energy bill--but they will understand the significance of this issue. They will understand that the fear regarding nuclear power and nuclear fuel rods is about nothing but a red herring. They are nothing that engineering competence cannot handle.

I close this opening argument on nuclear power and whether or not it is safe by saying to everyone listening or worrying about nuclear power versus the other power in America, there are over 100 American Navy vessels on the high seas of the world with engines that are nuclear powerplants. Nuclear powerplants run battleships, run aircraft carriers. They have fuel rods in them. They carry them everywhere on the seas. They are at every port in the free world, save one in New Zealand because New Zealand has an agreement against it. They are so safe, there are boats and ships all around the world that have nuclear powerplants on board, with nuclear waste sitting right there in the hulls of the ships.

When you add all that, it is the safest way to produce energy for the world in the future. Our package includes the research facility we will build in the State of my good friend who is sitting on my right. We say to our executive branch, in the event you think it is necessary, you can issue a loan agreement for half the cost of a nuclear powerplant to get it going.

I understand there are those who will just add up costs under the worst of circumstances. I would rather add up all the pluses and take a risk that is worthwhile. If ever there was a risk that was worthwhile, it is a plain and simple risk to revive nuclear power in America for America and for the world. That is what is at issue in this bill.

Those who argue not to gamble any money on this will not raise a pinky on spending $1.6 billion to research hydrogen, for a new hydrogen economy. It may not work. It may be thrown away. But it is in this bill to start the idea of engines that are going to use the new fuel. We are spending that money. We are not guaranteeing it. We are spending it. We are not guaranteeing General Motors. We are saying, enter into a partnership. We will spend some money. We hope it works.

This is an issue of risk. When you look at the other kinds of fuels, all of which we promote, none of which we shortchange, will we say America is a coal country, spend money to make the coal clean so that the ambient air of America is, indeed, clean? And spend plenty of it. We say, build windmills

and give huge credits for them to such an extent that there may be too many of them built in the next decade; we have to pass an national ordinance so they will not build them too close to some of our cities because there will be so many of them when this bill is passed with the subsidy included, the tax subsidy that will be attached. Geothermal-- there are plenty of subsidies. Every kind of energy you can imagine, we have said: Help it move along. At the same time, we have put into a package that rare opportunity for the United States to face up to the fact that, although we invented nuclear power, we hid from it. Others didn't. It is time we come back and revisit it. It is time that, as a package, coupled with all the other policies, we take a little risk in terms of its future, for the future of the world.

Mr. President, I have a series of remarks that I delivered on the nuclear subject on October 31, 1977, at Harvard University, which summarizes my views to that point. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

There is no objection.

Will the Senator yield?

I would like to comment on what the distinguished Senator, Mr. Wyden, just raised, and say to my good friend, the Congressional Budget Office is wrong almost every way it turns.

First, it uses forecast figures on plant costs of $2,300 per kilowatt. The right number is $1,250 per kilowatt. How do I know? There are two being built in Taiwan right now that General Electric designed--brand spanking new. They came to our office. I don't know if they had time to come and see you, I say to the Senator, but they brought with them their experts and told us those plants will cost not $2,300 per kilowatt but, rather, $1,250 per kilowatt. That is about half, as this Senator sees it.

So they are half wrong right up front in terms of their assessment.

Furthermore, the bill itself says that if this section that is being debated is ever used, the Secretary will evaluate the creditworthiness of any new project under this program. So they are already wrong by half on the cost.

Then I would ask, Does the Congressional Budget Office really believe the Secretary will approve a significant risk? If he approves a significant risk, he would be in violation--direct conflict--of the law that we are discussing that he would be acting on that the CBO assumes will cost this extraordinary amount and impose this extraordinary risk.

I thank the Senator for his comments and his responses. I am quite sure the Congressional Budget Office, as this Senator knows--I have only worked with it for the sum total of 26 years on all kinds of issues--I believe there is no subject they are more wrong on than their estimates of the cost of matters nuclear. First of all, they assume that everything that has gone wrong in the past is going to go wrong again, while the world is out there proving that such is not the case, while we are saying only under very limited circumstances would you ever use these sections to begin with, which would eliminate part of their reasoning, which would just leave the scene and would not even be applicable as they attempt to make the risk estimate.

I thank the Senator.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 856

Mr. President, how long did that last vote take?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 854

I have no objection.

Yes.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask the majority leader, would it be appropriate to dispose of the pending LIHEAP amendment to clear the record for the evening in spite of the unanimous consent request?

We have a Senator who still wants to speak on the pending bill. I assume after the time just provided has expired, we will be back for the distinguished Senator from Colorado to speak to an amendment; is that correct?

For the record, under the bill, I withdraw amendment No. 841.

I send a new second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Bingaman.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment be adopted and the underlying first-degree amendment No. 840, as amended, be agreed to.

Five minutes?

Senator Campbell has been waiting for a long time. He has an amendment on the underlying bill.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Defense Production Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Title XI, on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in Room SR- 253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Thursday, June 5, 2003, TBA, to mark up a revenue title to S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Life Inside North Korea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. for a nomination hearing to consider the nominations of C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Joe D. Whitly to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

i. nominations

R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice; David B. Rivkin to the

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; Richard C. Wesley to be

United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; J. Ronnie

Greer to be United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Tennessee; Thomas M. Hardiman to be United States

District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Mark

R. Kravitz to be United States District Judge for the

District of Connecticut; John A. Woodcock to be United States

District Judge for the District of Maine.

ii. bills

S. Res. 116, A resolution commemorating the life,

achievements and contributions of Al Lerner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., to conduct a hearing on Senate Rule XXII and proposals to amend this rule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding S. 485, the Clear Skies bill, to examine emissions- control technologies and utility-sector investment issues.

The hearing will take place in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5, 2003, on Intercity Passenger Rail Finance at 10 a.m. in Room SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 840 be temporarily set aside.

On behalf of the majority leader and minority leader and other Senators listed, I send to the desk the ethanol amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senate, we are now back on the Energy bill. The pending business is the ethanol amendment. We did dispose of two amendments yesterday. I am hopeful we will not have to redo them, however there is going to be another amendment, at least one, perhaps two, on the ethanol amendment. But in the meantime, the distinguished Republican whip has requested that he be permitted to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

I make that request in his behalf.

I ask the Chair get order in the Senate so he can be heard.

Mr. President, I know there are many Senators who have plenty to do besides being concerned about this Energy bill on the

floor of the Senate. But I want to say for some of us that the Energy Policy Act is a very important subject. The committee has worked very hard. We don't claim to have a perfect bill, but we claim to have a bill that deserves the consideration of the Senate.

For all those Senators who want to review the bill and haven't, I hope they will start. For those who have amendments and haven't reduced them to writing, I hope they get going. For those who have questions about the bill, we are going to be here working on it--both the minority whip and Senator Bingaman. His staff is adequate in numbers and capacity and will be available, as will mine.

With that in mind, we are back to the point where we have set aside the LIHEAP issue that came about yesterday--the issue with reference to the jurisdiction of the different LIHEAP provisions that we wanted to have in this bill where the chairman of the Committee on Health and Human Resources desires that it not be on the bill but rather be returned to his committee for jurisdictional consideration. That will be taken up later.

We are now back to ethanol. Yesterday we had two votes. They were very heavily debated for a long period of time. In each instance both failed. In each instance 60 votes or more were obtained on the side of supporting the bill, which is not just a Republican or Democrat bill. It is a bill put together by Democrats and Republicans, and all kinds of different leadership groups in this country that are concerned about our future in terms of dependence upon oil and its derivatives; those who are concerned about agricultural products and the fact that we produce so much more than we need and that the price is constantly a problem both to the Government because of its support programs and to the farmer because it is difficult to make a living.

Those who are concerned about rural America see this bill as a potential for the injection of tremendous amounts of real investments and real jobs and capital into all parts of rural America because facilities will have to be built that will cost billions of dollars in order to comply with the requirements of this national mandate for ethanol use.

The mandate is a good mandate. It is a national mandate. It is a mandate that says by a year certain we will be using certain quantities of ethanol in our petroleum products that feed the gasoline tanks, and thus the automobiles and trucks of America that use gasoline and diesel fuel.

I am sure there are additional amendments on this issue. I merely wanted to recap for the Senate where we are.

I also wish to say that while we have been on this bill for a number of days, it appears that the only amendments are those that pertain to ethanol. I know there are more. I implore Senators, I beg them, if they have amendments, let us get them ready and bring them down here. Who knows, they may have winners. They may have a much better approach to energy independence in this bill. We stand ready to accommodate and get them before the Senate and get the votes on them as soon as possible.

What I understand the situation to be now, so the Senators will understand, is that the distinguished minority manager, the junior Senator from New Mexico, has an amendment on ethanol. I understand that when he is finished, the distinguished Senator from New York has an amendment. He told the Senator from New Mexico that he would follow the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. I hope that will be the case. If he comes forth, we will not have one vote at a time but rather back- to-back votes. There appears to be a couple of other amendments that may be offered before the day is out.

Then I suggest that as many Senators as possible begin to try to figure out what they want to do with this bill. I know there are Senators who have not had a chance to make up their mind about amendments but I ask that they do that. Actually, there are many of us who want to get an Energy bill. We think the remainder of this week, clear through Friday, and all of next week ought to be sufficient time to get this done. Some do not think so but I surmise that if we tried, and we had amendments going most of the day, with votes taking place each day, we would be surprised how soon we would get this bill completed.

Having said that, I yield the floor to my distinguished fellow Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Will the Senator join me in asking for the yeas and nays on his amendment?

Let me ask, does Senator Reid know if there is another Senator who has an amendment?

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

Should we put Nickles on the list?

We think he will come off.

Might we do it this way, so there will be a bit of finality. It is 10 minutes to 5. Could we enter into an agreement that that is it, unless some Senator contacts you or Senator Bingaman or myself by 5 o'clock?

That is plenty, 10 minutes. At 5:30?

For now we are going with the fact this is all we are

aware of. We hope Senators understand we are perilously close to making that a consent agreement but we have not yet, just in deference to somebody who might still come up with a new idea regarding this subject.

I understand. To give her a little more time, I understand we could have two votes. What we will tell the Senate shortly, about LIHEAP, which may meet with your approval, Senator Bingaman--the idea would be to bring it back immediately following a vote on your amendment. It would make the pending business the LIHEAP amendments, both of them, at which time we would have a vote on the Domenici amendment that was offered in behalf of the chairman of the committee, and there would be a vote. Immediately following that vote there would be a vote, if required, on the LIHEAP amendment.

The Gregg amendment, yes.

Right.

I wonder if we could agree to vote on the Bingaman amendment and then say, when that vote has been completed and we finish it, there would be 10 minutes for debate, at which time I will give 5 of that to the Senator you just described, for her discussion, or 10, whatever you would like, after which we would have a vote? That gives you what you need and it sets up at least two votes and a disposition of your LIHEAP.

All right. Could we just make sure everybody understands we are prepared to move, soon, to bring the LIHEAP issue back on the calendar where it belongs, and to dispose of it this evening?

With that, I assume we will proceed, Senator, to vote on your amendment, if that is all right with you.

Madam President, there has been ample argument in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. The Senator from New Mexico, the manager of the bill, would merely like to say, while I accept the argument of the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, it seems to this Senator from New Mexico that to adopt the amendment truly creates an unworkable situation with reference to the source, supply, and the management of petroleum needs in the United States. That is all I have to say. I believe there is ample flexibility in the underlying bill. I do not believe we ought to make it more difficult to turn the spigot on and off with reference to the impact of ethanol on the gasoline supply in the country.

I believe it is almost unworkable, for any President to decide, for instance, what caused the increase and to turn that on and off with reference to the supply and refining capacity and the like.

With that, I yield the floor. I am prepared to vote up or down on the Bingaman amendment to the ethanol amendment.

I am going to suggest the absence a quorum for about 10 minutes. Senators are being put on notice during that period of time that we are going to vote shortly. That is why we are having a 10- minute quorum call at this time. I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, regular order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Madam President, I say to fellow Senators, we are going to have a unanimous-consent request that will pertain to ethanol. There will be no further votes this evening. We will have a unanimous-consent request regarding three amendments on ethanol that will be entered into shortly. All three will be voted on tomorrow, and that will dispose of the ethanol second-degree amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Do we have the rest of the consent ready?

Does the Senator think we should wait now and do it or let Senator Schumer begin?

Just so everybody understands, we do intend to have a consent that disposes of all three amendments, with votes on all three, Schumer and two others. But that consent agreement will come along shortly.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only remaining second-degree amendments to No. 850 and that they be related to ethanol: No. 1, Schumer, which we are hearing now, 20 minutes equally divided; Senator Boxer, 1 hour equally divided on two amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that following debate on the Schumer amendment this evening, the amendment be temporarily set aside. I further ask consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill on Thursday, Senator Boxer be recognized--at that time, she be recognized in order to offer her first amendment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following debate on the above listed amendments, they be temporarily set aside and the votes occur in relation to the amendments in the order offered at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

I do not want to object, but I want to ask a question because I am rereading what I just read. It does not seem to me that it says there is a second Boxer amendment.

It says Senator Boxer be recognized to offer her first amendment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the above listed amendments--it does not say her second amendment.

All right.

That is about right.

I don't see anyone here who wants to argue in opposition to you. We have already voted. I know the Senator from New York has great, innovative capacity and that he has proudly come up with an amendment the likes of which the Senate has never seen or heard, but I have an inclination that it is similar to what we have voted heretofore; I don't believe it has been offered to do anything other than cause significant mischief to the ethanol bill which is before the Senate, which I understand has very broad support.

So my argument would merely be, in all deference, to suggest that enough is enough, and just as we voted heretofore in opposition to the other amendments, we follow suit and vote against the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York.

I only used 3 minutes and I yield back any other time in opposition. I thank the Senator for being generous in only using a small amount of the Senate's time this evening. I do mean the latter seriously.

Will the Senator yield?

I remind the Senator, in response to the Senator from New Mexico and his remarks about this being more of the same and enough is enough and his comment, one thing is different, and that is that the ranking minority member of the Energy Committee was on his amendment, I remind the Senator that same Senator has offered his own amendment and it did not get enough votes. If you get as many votes as he got, you are doing quite well. I don't know that you can expect more by saying he is on it since he has tried his best and failed already.

I am anxiously awaiting for you to decide you have used your time up. Have you?

I am so thrilled. That is the first act of generosity that has occurred with reference to the chairman, who has been trying to get this bill completed. I am very thrilled.

Tomorrow we will have three votes, as I indicated, starting sometime after 10 o'clock. They will all be on ethanol. We have a bill with all kinds of things in it and we will just be finishing the subject matter of both votes on ethanol.

I do thank the minority managers for their efforts, in particular Senator Reid, in trying to narrow down the number of amendments on the Democratic side, which they have done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in a period of morning business and Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority whip for his eloquent statement today and compliment him on his persistence with reference to the cause of freedom and democracy in Burma.

On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 5. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with the time under the control of Senator Dole, provided that at 10 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill, and Senator Boxer be recognized as under the previous order.

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning Senator Dole will deliver her maiden speech. When the Senate resumes the Energy bill, Senator Boxer will offer the first of two ethanol amendments. The votes in relation to these amendments, as well as the pending Schumer amendment, will be stacked to occur later in the day. It is hoped that Senators who have additional amendments on any part of this bill would make themselves available to offer those amendments so that further progress can be made on this important legislation.

I would also add, it is hoped we can reach an agreement so that all of the amendments must be filed at the desk by a time certain. We will continue to work toward that agreement.

Having said that, votes will occur tomorrow on amendments to the Energy bill with the hope of making substantial progress.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate----

I have no objection.

I repeat to the Senators, we are going to make every effort. The distinguished Senators, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Reid, and myself and the distinguished majority leader, we are going to do everything we can to try to get a list of amendments and a date certain for first-degree amendments with reference to this bill.

Having said that, votes are going to occur tomorrow on amendments to the Energy bill with the hope of making substantial progress.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Pryor as heretofore agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.