Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator for coming early this morning and offering an amendment to help us get this bill going. We will be arranging a sequencing of these amendments later in the day. I thank the Senator for bringing forth the amendment at this time.

Might I say to the two Senators debating the issue, because of management problems, it appears this amendment will be set aside and will be voted on later in the evening but today, along with as many votes as we can stack with it, sometime after 4 o'clock this afternoon. I assume that is satisfactory to the Senator from California and the minority leader.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the amendment?

I assume it would be a second-degree amendment.

Is it in order without a consent agreement?

She already did that?

I thank the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to discuss with the Senate where we are. As manager of the bill, I am interested in trying to see if we can entice and excite Senators about bringing their amendments that have to do with the ethanol part of this bill to the floor today, if possible. We have two pending and, very shortly, we will have a consent agreement regarding voting on those two. That would give us the afternoon for further discussion on and the reception of other amendments with reference to ethanol--if Senators desire to do that. We are aware of two or three others, perhaps four Senators who would like to offer amendments regarding ethanol.

I remind Senators there are many more issues in this Energy bill, although this is a very important one. Obviously, we want it thoroughly debated and, ultimately, hopefully, from the managers' standpoint, we would like it to be adopted as part of the bill. Sooner or later, we have to head on to some of the other provisions. There are seven or eight contentious ones at least that need to be discussed. We are now awaiting final word from the other side as to whether we can proceed. I understand we can.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to morning business.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1162 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

I ask that it be in order to read the title of the measure.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to the measure and object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, I understand the ethanol sequencing of votes is acceptable, so I will propound the unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 843 at 4:30 today and that there be 10 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote. I further ask that following that vote, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 844, with 4 minutes equally divided for debate prior to that vote.

Mr. President, that means that at 4:30 we will start the first vote on S. 14, the Energy Policy Act. There will be two votes. There is another matter already pending, but we will await the arrival of the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, to see what his pleasure is regarding further time to debate the LIHEAP amendment and an amendment I made on his behalf thereto.

Hopefully that, too, can be disposed of today, although the Senator from New Mexico is in no way pushing that because Senator Gregg will use whatever time he needs in that regard.

Once again, Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, I know some of them have other amendments regarding the ethanol amendment. We also know that the ethanol amendment is very popular. We think it is a fair assessment to say it is probably going to pass rather handsomely in the Senate. Nonetheless, Senators desire to make their case and make their points, and the Senate is disposed, obviously, to let them do that. It would be nice if we could get that much of the bill done today; that is, debate on those issues pertaining to ethanol.

I note Senator Bingaman is standing. Perhaps he desires to speak at this point.

I assume I said 4 o'clock. I was incorrect. It is 4:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified so that all after the enacting clause of H.R. 1308 be stricken, and the text of the Grassley amendment regarding the child tax credit be inserted in lieu thereof; provided further that the bill then be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

I object.

Mr. President, I would like to state what the Grassley proposal is.

It would make permanent the increase in the child tax credit. The bill signed by the President last week increases the credit from $600 to $1,000 for the next 2 years. The Grassley amendment would make the increase permanent.

Second, it would eliminate the marriage penalty built into the current child tax credit. The Grassley amendment increases the income phaseout for married couples filing jointly to twist the limit for single individuals filing alone. The Lincoln amendment fails to address this inequity in the current formulation of the child tax credit.

Third, the amendment would create a uniform definition of a ``child.'' This language is identical to the legislation introduced by Senators Grassley and Baucus. This change reduces from five to one the number of definitions of a ``child'' in the Tax Code, which will simplify part of the code that will directly affect working families.

I might say to my good friend that I think she understands. I have the greatest respect for her. And, obviously, she makes a case today not only for herself but for many Senators and for many who voted with her in the days preceding as this legislation worked its way through here and through the conference in the House.

It is the responsibility of the Senator from New Mexico to respond in behalf of the majority, and I have done so. In doing so, I have offered a counterproposal. Obviously, it is significantly different than the one the distinguished Senator from Arkansas offered; nonetheless, a very significant proposal. I thank her for her generosity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that a vote will occur at 4:30; that there are 10 minutes prior thereto for debate on the first amendment equally divided into 5 minutes each for those proponents and opponents of that amendment. Is that correct?

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the title of the first amendment?

Mr. President, I trust the Senator from California will be here if she desires to debate it.

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

Mr. President, I am prepared to vote. Do I have to yield back time?

I yield back any time I have in opposition.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 844

Can we have order, Mr. President? I understand the Senator from California has 2 minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. President, can we have order?

Mr. President, might I say, if you are for an ethanol program for the Nation, then you can't vote for this amendment.

If this amendment passes, there is no American ethanol program as we have been speaking of it in terms of reducing the American dependence on foreign oil. It becomes something different and not an American program to accomplish that purpose.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I am happy to yield.

I certainly concur. The alliance should be an inclusive but well-defined group of companies active in the research, development and implementation of solid-state lighting technologies in the United States. The DOE should select the alliance as quickly as possible, so as not to delay the program's implementation.

Mr. President, again I completely agree with the Senator. I would also add that the intellectual property in section 914 is patterned after the Department of Energy's Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance, or SECA. Under the SECA model, research and development qualifies for the ``exceptional circumstances'' provision of the Bayh-Dole Act. Inventors still retain rights to their intellectual property. Those alliance participants who are active in solid-state lighting research and development will receive the first option to negotiate non-exclusive licenses and royalty payments to use the invention.

I fully agree. The Senator serves as our ranking member and was instrumental in the adoption of this provision by our committee. I think we both expect that quick action by the Department of Energy will stimulate the private sector.

Madam President, I know the distinguished minority leader is disappointed, but not as much as the Senator from New Mexico. Obviously, we have worked very hard on what we think is a very good Energy bill. I think the United States deserves an Energy bill. I know there are other issues. I have no quibble with other Senators who have issues that they think are of great importance, including tax issues, but it is quite a surprise to see an issue of tax significance being applied to an Energy bill for the United States, although technically one might call it a tax bill.

Nonetheless, where there is a will there is a way. If I understand it, there seems to be a will tonight that we will proceed to try to iron out the difficulties between the parties as to the tax matters and then tomorrow proceed with dispatch to get the ethanol amendment back on board, and hopefully not have to go through the same amendments on ethanol that we have already had, and proceed with the lining up of some amendments on the Energy bill with which I understand the minority has indicated a willingness to help. We will work on our side to do the same.

Whatever time I had remaining under my 10 minutes, I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a Hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the Status of Tribal Fish and Wildlife Management Programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony regarding S. 268, authorizes the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor members of the armed forces of the Untied States who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations; S. 296, to require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress regarding the requirements applicable to the inscription of veterans' names on the memorial wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; S. 470, to extend the authority for the construction of a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.; and S. 1076, to authorize construction of an education center at or near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on Space Propulsion in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Julie Nichole Bostick and Rick Feger of my office during the remainder of today's session.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Am I correct that we are currently on S. 14?

The National Energy Policy Act?

I thank the Chair. I hope Senators and their staff are paying attention. We have been given this week, and it would seem like part of next week, to get an energy bill completed in the Senate. We know this is an important bill, and we know these are important issues to Senators.

Nonetheless, it would seem to this Senator that we have had a very lengthy debate, a lot of amendments, and much discussion last year on an energy policy. Admittedly, much of

that debate centered around the Alaskan wilderness provisions, and they are not going to be at issue in this bill unless somebody chooses to make them so. As manager on this side, I am not aware of anyone who intends to do that. Not because people have changed their minds but because the issue seems to have been decided.

It seems to this Senator that much of the debate has been narrowed. Nonetheless, there is a significant number of issues of consequence to many Members. We did produce a bill in the committee in kind of rapid time, but considering that many of the issues had been debated so frequently, it appeared to this Senator, as chairman, that we did a rather good job. That does not mean we do not have some serious issues, but I believe, since the House has once again produced a National Energy Policy Act, we have a responsibility to produce one. In due course, we will be able to discuss with the Senate and with the people of this country what kind of bill we have.

As chairman, it was this Senator's hope we could produce a bill that over time gave to the American people an opportunity to use a variety of types of energy to meet both the residential and business energy needs in America's future. In essence, we tried to produce a bill that was going to enhance and increase production of various types of energy.

We could have a serious discussion of what we see down the line for the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years that precipitates this bill and will in turn precipitate the debate on various amendments. However, it ought to be clear to everyone that the United States has, all of a sudden, within the past 5 years decided the energy of choice seems to be natural gas, aside from the fact that we still drive automobiles that use petroleum products, and thus we are still very dependent upon crude oil. We produce as much as we can at home and import a huge amount from a large pool of oil which is now being produced by numerous countries around the globe.

At home, 90 percent of the new electricity production comes from natural gas fired generation. There is nothing wrong with that, but that, coupled with the direct use of natural gas in this country, means we are rapidly moving toward a natural gas economy.

For some, there is no risk in that. For others, they ought to at least be concerned. For others, it seems that we may run into a shortage of natural gas sometime in the not-too-distant future. To that end, this bill says we have an abundance of coal in our country; do everything we can to enhance the usability of coal by spending resources on science to develop and modernize and even build a powerplant that would be clean so that we can prove that in the future coal can begin to fill the gap and begin to take the place of natural gas.

We have also gone ahead particularly at the persuasion of this Senator, the chairman, and said that maybe the time has come for a rebirth of nuclear power in America. We will have a good opportunity for a lengthy and wholesome debate on where we are today, what went wrong in the past, and what we ought to be doing in the future, perhaps, as this bill envisions, giving nuclear power a chance to come back to life in America and become a powerful source of energy around the world.

At the same time, renewables are of great concern to many Americans. A thorough reading of this bill plus the amendment which is contemplated, the one produced by the Finance Committee, which has a significant provision in it for tax incentives for renewables--the totality of the bill, plus the proposed amendment that would be attached from the Finance Committee, suggests to the American people there will be a lot of windmills in our future. Literally, there will be millions of them. They will be a significant portion of the grid in the United States.

In addition, all other sources of energy--biomass and all related forms--are given some incentive, or in every way possible we have attempted to put all of them on an equal footing. There will be a variety of energy types available to the American people in the foreseeable future.

Clearly, there will be seven or eight major issues. I am hopeful that ethanol, which has become a huge issue even though it is not part of the jurisdiction of this committee--the major ethanol bill currently pending as an amendment has many considerations that will be brought to the Senate's attention by Senators concerned about it and who want various changes in it. We would like that it be dealt with in due course, that it not take a huge amount of the time allotted for this entire bill. We are working together on both sides of the aisle to see if we can set that amendment aside while we pursue other amendments, to move ahead, taking the ethanol provisions in due course.

This bill was reported on April 30 and laid before the Senate on May 6. The Senate considered the measure for 3 days at the beginning of May during which time the pending amendment relating to ethanol was laid down. Today, we begin consideration of the measure. I believe we can predict the outcome of most of the major issues in this legislation. The pending amendment is a bipartisan agreement on ethanol reached after years of negotiation among the involved parties sponsored by the majority and minority leaders and identical to language reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I don't think there is any question but it will be adopted. However, there are some Senators, led by Senators Feinstein and Schumer, who oppose the amendment and have the right to offer as many second-degree amendments as they like-- as they did last year.

However, as with all major issues, the Senate spoke last year. For the most part, the issues have not changed. I am certain the resolution of those matters will largely reflect the resolution achieved last year. Last year, it took 6 weeks. There is no reason for it to take that long this year. While some issues are clear, the legislation before the Senate also raised new issues which deserve the consideration of the Senate. I expect amendments related to our titles dealing with electricity, Indian energy, nuclear energy--which I alluded to briefly--which are significantly different from those proposed last year, will take a little bit of time. I also think there are a few areas, such as climate change and renewable portfolio standard, where the outcome may or may not be different from last year.

I hope my colleagues will give Members the opportunity to move as expeditiously through some of these issues as possible. I want the will of the Senate worked, and I will do all I can to move the process along. The majority leader has indicated the Senate will be on this bill this week and some portion of next week with only a few interruptions for other matters that may need to be resolved. I understand we need to spend a few hours resolving some matters relating to the Defense authorization bill and may need to vote on a few judges. Those issues should not consume a lot of time.

For my part, I will be here waiting for amendments. I understand from my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, that he, too, is available. We will spend as much time as necessary to move this bill along. I hope a vote can occur tomorrow, perhaps as early as noon, and then thereafter on a regular basis. Senators can expect votes at various times unless we reach some agreements, which everyone would know about from time to time, on each of the days we are scheduled to be in session this week and next week. There are amendments out there. I understand a number of Senators will offer amendments on the OCS inventory provisions of the bill. I have been told perhaps Senator McCain plans to offer amendments related to climate change and perhaps CAFE. Senator Bingaman made it clear he plans to offer a number of amendments. We are prepared and ready to proceed on those.

I encourage Members to be prepared to come to the Senate as soon as possible. We would like very much to be given the opportunity to get this bill discussed and get the issues debated and voted on as soon as practical. This Senator thinks they are important. There are many people in this country who think energy is important. Until there is a crisis, we act as if we need not worry about an Energy bill, but things have not changed that much. Whatever the crisis was or wasn't last year or the year before, it is practically the same for all intents and purposes today. We remain gravely dependent upon foreign oil. Clearly, there are a number of bottlenecks created

both by bureaucracy and statute that we are going to try to alleviate. There are a number of incentives that ought to be built into the energy base of our country.

As we look at the overall picture, the United States has a rare opportunity to see to it that it has plenty of energy of a variety of types and sources, and after the adoption of this policy through conference and through signature of the President so that America will not have to be worried; we will clearly be in a position that the energy we need to grow and prosper will be there.

Throughout consideration of this bill, there will be discussions about conservation--saving of energy, the use of less energy wherever we can, and promoting policy changes which will indeed promote the use of less rather than more energy. That, too, will create some very serious debates and serious discussions.

With that, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Bingaman. We are attempting to get a unanimous consent request in short order. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have received consent from both sides for the following consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending ethanol amendment be set aside temporarily so that the Senator from New Mexico can offer an amendment with reference to LIHEAP.

Mr. President, I want to explain what we have done and why we have done it. Obviously, there are Senators who want to debate and propose amendments to the ethanol provision. They are not available today.

On the other hand, there is an issue, the LIHEAP issue. Last year the LIHEAP bill was found in the Energy legislation. This year the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources voted for LIHEAP, to reauthorize the LIHEAP Act, and did not include it in the bill but recommended that it would be offered on the floor as an amendment.

In compliance with that, I am going to offer the LIHEAP reauthorization amendment. It will be offered by myself, for myself and for Senator Bingaman, in response to the recommendation of the Energy Committee that such be the case.

With that, I send to the desk the low-income home energy assistance program, on behalf of myself, Senator Bingaman, and the committee.

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

Mr. President, the amendment increases the authorization for the low-income home energy assistance program from the current authorization of $2 billion annually to $3.4 billion for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2006. The amendment also expands eligibility for the Weatherization Assistance Program to include families with household incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty level established by OMB, which is equivalent to the existing LIHEAP eligibility.

The amendment also increases funding to $325 million for fiscal year 2004 through $400 million for 2005, and $500 million for 2006.

Finally, the amendment establishes procedures for regular review of existing State energy conservation programs. It sets State energy efficiency goals, reducing energy use by 25 percent by 2010 from energy usage in 1990, and it expands and extends authorization for these programs to $100 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005, and $125 million for 2006.

I urge my colleagues to agree to the amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have already indicated to the Senate that while this amendment was in the Energy bill last year, and while it was considered by the Energy Committee of the Senate and handled in a manner that I have described, it is not included in the bill but recommended for submission as an amendment, which has been done. It is clear the jurisdictional issue which has arisen did not come up last year, as I understand it, from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico who was chairman last year. It was not raised. So we proceeded as if the same were to occur this year. Such is not the case in that the chairman and the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction desire to challenge the inclusion of that.

They are aware of the fact that the amendment is going to be included today. The chairman of the appropriate committee, Senator Gregg, is not here today. He will be here tomorrow. Thus, we will not complete debate on this until he comes back tomorrow. But I am going to send to the desk, as they understand this is going to be the case, in behalf of Senator Gregg, an amendment to my amendment which strikes the section of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program substitute and extensive Senate language; that when the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions reauthorizes the LIHEAP Act of 1981, the committee should consider increasing the authorization of the program to $3.4 billion to better serve the needs of low-income and other eligible households.

I, therefore, send in amendment to the desk in behalf of the chairman of the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions a sense-of- the-Senate amendment which does what I have just described.

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

Mr. President, as I understand it, this is the second- degree amendment. Clearly, it will be debated tomorrow when Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy return. We will see what the wish of the Senate is. I join with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, in stating that I hope we will leave it in this bill. I think the House has done the same. I think it is important that we adopt the LIHEAP bill and that we do it now. Obviously, there is no need for the Senator from New Mexico to debate any further on this issue because the opponents have to be heard from and they won't be here until tomorrow.

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.

Mr. President, for Senators again, let me repeat that we are awaiting the return of Senator Gregg to debate this issue; that is, the second-degree amendment which was just offered a few moments ago. In the meantime, the entire Energy bill is before us. Amendments would not be in order obviously. We will await their return and then begin the debate. After we finish the debate, we will vote on LIHEAP.

We will also debate the ethanol amendment. We are attempting to work with Senators who have serious issues with reference to ethanol to see if we can't line those up so that we will be ready to proceed in due course and with some degree of dispatch.

Having said that, I don't believe there is going to be any further significant business on this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Indian Reservation Transportation Improvement Program Act. I am pleased to be joined, as I have been each time that I have introduced legislation dealing with the Indian Reservation Roads program, by my good friends, Senators Inouye and Campbell. I am confident that we will replicate the success we have had in our previous endeavors to improve this important program.

In 1982, when I served on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, several members of the Navajo Nation Tribal Council Committee on Transportation approached me with an interesting proposition. These Navajo Councilmen believed that the time had come for Indian tribes to participate directly in our National Highway Trust Fund programs.

I agreed with these gentlemen, the Senate agreed with me, and the Congress and President Reagan approved Indian tribal participation in the U.S. Department of Transportation highway construction program for the first time in our Nation's history.

By the mid-1980's, Indian Reservation Roads, IRR, funding was at about $100 million per year nationwide. By the late 1980's, however, IRR funding fell to about $80 million per year. In ISTEA, for the early 1990's, we were able to raise this critical highway construction funding to about $190 million per year.

Then, in TEA-21, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, we succeeded in bringing annual IRR funding up to $275 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

As we seek to promote economic opportunities on our Nation's tribal reservations, I believe it is imperative that we once again increase this vital infrastructure funding. I am aware that the National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, is recommending a large jump to $500 million per year for the construction program; $100 million for an Indian transit program; $50 million for Indian bridges; $70 million, plus $26 million in Interior funding, for road maintenance; and several other additions for a total of $907 million in DOT funds in FY2004. By the year FY2009, the NCAI recommendations would exceed $1.4 billion annually.

While I am sympathetic to the need for such large increases, I am keenly aware of competing needs around the country for medical research, economic stimulus, and for our national defense, to name just a few. Therefore, I am compelled to recommend increases for the IRR program that are more likely to win acceptance among my colleagues.

For highway construction, I am recommending an immediate increase of $55 million in the first year to a new total of $330 million. My bill would then increase the amount for construction by $30 million each year so that the program receives $480 million in the final year of the authorization. For the Indian bridge program, I am recommending $15 million per year, an increase of $6 million annually. And for State roads that serve as key bus routes for Indian children, primarily on our Nation's largest Indian reservation--the Navajo Nation--I am recommending increasing this vital funding from $1.5 million per year to $3 million in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to $4 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and $5 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

My final recommendation is to create a rural transit program for Indian Reservations. Because the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration each have their areas of expertise that can make such a program a success, my legislation will require the two agencies to work together for the benefit of the tribes who participate in this program. My suggestion is to fund this program at $20 million.

In closing, I want to thank the Navajo Nation Transportation Committee and the tribal transportation department for keeping me informed of their progress and continuing needs. I believe my bill will be a positive answer to their requests. In addition, the Pueblo Indians and Apache Indians of New Mexico have continuing development needs, including new and improved roads to reach their many attractions for tourists and other visitors.

I ask my colleagues to join me in increasing the Indian Reservation Roads program funds in our Federal Highways Programs to the degree I have requested in this bill. I thank my colleagues and urge their support for these increases as we reauthorize TEA-21 for six more years.

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

Mr. President, first, I want to say my congratulations to the other side for attempting to tighten up the Budget Act, particularly Senator Feingold. On the other hand, this is not the way to do it nor the time to do it.

The motion that has been made by the distinguished chairman that this amendment must fail is not a frivolous one. To have this kind of a change in the Budget Act requires hearings. That is what this is about. The statute says before you change this law--and we thank the Lord all the time that they put this in this law--on the floor, you have to send it to the committee. That is kind of new around here but it is very good stuff. So that you know the ramifications before you do the amending. The ramifications of this amendment are so farfetched that it is not farfetched to say you are voting against prescription drug reform if you vote for this amendment or to override the motion by the chairman who says we should not do this.

Secondly, I want to offer an explanation. Today there is much talk about the tax bill, and people are saying that the tax bill, since many of the tax proposals do not go on forever, is jiggering the Tax Code. I should remind everyone that the tax bill we have done is done under the Budget Act. In turn, it is done under a reconciliation instruction. It is not done under the ordinary law of the Senate. Therefore, we are bound by the law not to pass permanent tax law changes. So it is not anybody trying to play with the Tax Code. It is the law that says, if you want the benefit of the Budget Act under reconciliation, which means no filibuster and minimal amendments, then you cannot make the tax changes permanent. In other words, it gives you a benefit, and it is a safeguard of permanency not being available at the same time.

That is the explanation for those who are writing and talking about the fact that these tax provisions are not permanent.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Thank you.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I thank you very much. I know people are ready to catch airplanes, and we are on a time schedule, and I should say only a couple of words, if any. So I will say that sometimes it seems as if I am just starting. Sometimes late at night, it seems as if I have been here forever. I don't know how my wife, who is watching, is taking this. It may be that she might be thinking it is going to come to an end soon and perhaps we will not be here any longer. I hope not.

But let me say to all of you: Thank you for your kind words. But, most of all, thanks to the Senate. It did not take 12,000 votes to learn how to be a Senator but it took some time. Once you get there, you know you are. Once you are a Senator, there is just nothing like it. Once you know what the Senate is, you know there is nothing like it. I have been given enough time for both.

I believe I know how to be a Senator, and I believe I know what the Senate is. Both have been heralded and written about. Whatever it is that has been said is all true. It is a rather fantastic place. You cannot serve with a greater group of people. There is no conceivable way that I, as an American, could spend time with 100 men and women of the caliber that we have here, whatever that is in terms of their variety of skills, measures, and attributes; and that is for sure.

With that, and for that, I thank all of you. In particular today, for doing this, I thank our distinguished majority leader.

Thank you very much.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, on this Memorial Day, I encourage New Mexicans to take a few moments to remember those Americans who have given their lives in the name of freedom. It is upon the sacrifice of these Americans--from all generations--that the freedom we enjoy today is built.

From the Bataan Peninsula to Normandy, from the Ia Drang Valley to Inchon, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and many other conflicts, American men and women have fought and died because they believed in their country and believed in preserving its many blessings.

As we enjoy this holiday weekend with our families and friends, let us take a few minutes to recognize the courage with which so many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have fought when called upon by their country. Let us also remember all those who never made it back to the country they loved because they gave their lives for it in a far away land.

At this moment in America's history, I could not be more proud of our men and women in uniform. I think it is important to note that in the wake of successful combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same courage and commitment shown by Americans of generations past lives on today in the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

I am pleased to.

I will be very brief. An hour and a half.

No, sir. About 15 minutes.

I understand.

Mr. President, I acknowledge upfront the very astute and academically sound argument of my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. While I have been working in this field for the last 25 to 26 years in particular, and the last 10 with more emphasis, this has occurred in the last period of time. My work has come as the United States has prepared its great nuclear weapons laboratories to use new kinds of science to determine the viability and credibility of the existing warheads without underground testing.

As everyone recalls, this body passed an amendment, rather overwhelmingly, saying we should not use underground testing for our weapons. I have learned since then how little we knew about that proposition when we cast that vote. Nonetheless, it is the law of the land. It has cost the American taxpayer, in my way of looking at it, billions of dollars.

Frankly, as I look at the risk in the world, I do not think it has saved the world from nuclear weapons as people had thought. Already with that ban, there are new countries with new nuclear weapons, and they did not need underground testing. At least they did not need it as we had assumed they would need it when we stopped ourselves from doing it. Yet we have the greatest scientific community of men and women in the world, believe it or not, accumulated in three laboratories, and about 85 percent of their work goes to that one item.

How can we make sure that the weapons we have are valid without testing, all of which was done in the hope that nobody else would get bombs, get any nuclear weapons, because an underground test would proliferate the desire, if nothing else, for more nuclear weapons?

I was not on the Senate floor for the entire argument when that amendment of nonnuclear testing occurred. My great friend Mark Hatfield was a proponent. But I do know the argument was of the type that if we did not do that, we would be inviting other countries to do what is necessary to develop nuclear weapons. If we did not do it, we could dampen that.

Now, I do not suggest the arguments are analogous.

It is interesting that this enormous debate is taking place regarding an amendment that says nothing in the repeal of the previous amendment regarding low-yield weapons. ``Nothing in the repeal made by subsection (a) shall be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons.''

We could say we do not believe what we are saying, that it is not true, if America wants to direct its scientists--the same scientists I just spoke of, incidentally--it will be the same laboratories. They will not invent some new ones. In addition to everything you are doing, you will be given permission to think about, to hypothesize, to ponder, to make pictures of, draw diagrams of low-yield bombs and what they are all about.

Does it make sense, in the kind of world we live, to say to the greatest scientists in the world--we are spending about $6 billion a year for them to make sure the current nuclear weapons are OK, safe, and will deliver, if called upon, without underground testing, but to say to that same group, you cannot spend any time--you cannot have a department, you cannot have a division, you cannot have your smartest people or even any people in those institutions thinking about low- level nuclear bombs--not making them, not preparing to deploy them, for this statute forbids it.

Our laboratories are filled with dedicated Americans. They want to do their jobs. They want to do no more or no less than they are authorized. They do not want to be called upon by a congressional committee to respond to doing more than they had authority to do; and clearly they never want to be accused of having done less than they were supposed to.

On the other hand, does it seem possible we should be saying to these most brilliant of scientists, here on the wall is a statute and regardless of what comes to your great minds about low-level nuclear bombs, stop thinking about it. It is against the law. We do not want you thinking about it.

Maybe that is a little farfetched. But it is not farfetched to say thinking about it and writing something down about it is against the law, at least if what my colleague from New Mexico says on the floor prevails.

Those scientists know so much more than us about the world and the changes occurring, and we are wondering about what Russia is going to be doing. There is apt to be 3 or 4 nuclear powers in the next 10 years and there is nothing in the world we can do about it. We can sit on the floor and talk about low yield; maybe that is what they are after. There will be nuclear devices that can be delivered long distances causing huge amounts of damage. They are going to happen. The people working on those are not going to spend one iota of concern on whether we have this provision in our law.

Some of our scientists might just come up with a great idea about a low-level bomb that could be great for America considering what they see going on in the world, converse to what the argument has been. The argument has been, we will teach the world to do what we are doing. I am suggesting our scientists will say to us, we are learning from the world what we might want to do in order to keep the peace longer and better and be able to tell our adversaries what you are thinking of doing.

I thought that was what we were all about. I thought that is what Los Alamos scientists are all about. I thought they were part of this great deterrent. I still believe they are. I believe to permit them to work in this area is part of the deterrent. It does not commit the country to build new kinds of weapons. It does not permit us to produce or test new weapons. It does not suggest we should deploy new weapons. It allows our scientists to study and perform research and development options that policymakers in the administration and even in the Congress may want to know more about.

I know this for sure when I say ``may want to know more about it.'' I say that because these smart people might come to us and tell us, believe it or not, something we do not know. Would that be preposterous to some of us sitting in the Senate? Would it be preposterous that after this prohibition is lifted in 5 years they could come to us and say, We have been studying and here is what we have found. It is something you never had in mind, we never had in mind. But think about it. All of that seems to me to come on the good side.

On the negative side, I cannot see where researching, thinking about, intellectualizing about low-level waste, is adding to the proliferation of nuclear weapons problem in the world. Remember, even if someone in the administration wanted the new weapons, they could not proceed to full-scale development, the production and deployment, unless Congress authorizes and appropriates funds required to do so. This has not been done. It should not be done without more information or debate, and it will not be done.

Finally, there are very important intelligence, nonproliferation reasons why our scientists should be able to develop their thinking in these important areas of research. If anyone in this world is thinking about low-level weapons, we must know as much as we can about them. I just said that in a different way a moment ago.

NNSA, the new semiautonomous agency that controls our weapons development, should challenge their scientists and engineers to think, to explore, to discover, to innovate. By removing the prohibition on research and development on low-level yield weapons, our experts will expand their own understanding and capabilities without artificial restrictions.

I repeat, if anything comes out of this that is surprising, it will be what we will be able to do to prevent proliferation from happening somehow, somewhere in the world. In fact, I think that is more apt to happen as a result of the thinking and the development that occurs here by our scientists than the reverse. We have no idea what these great minds can be thinking, but the great minds of the other scientists in the world are thinking about them also.

As a matter of fact, we heard some statements about Russia thinking about them as if we ought to be afraid of that, because if we do not do it, they will not do it. If anyone believes that, they probably would believe almost anything. They are busy looking at whatever kind of new nuclear weapons that do not break any of the agreements with us. We will soon be greatly reducing our arsenals of heavy weapons, and at the same time other countries and their scientists will develop nuclear weapons. They will be developing low yield ones, too. They will be developing low yield ones with very different ways of using them than we ever thought. We ought to have the very best looking at how that might happen, if it might happen.

I yield the floor.