Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is our intention to move next to the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka; and, after that, to the amendment of Senator Cantwell. However, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania has an amendment which he wishes to propose. The time will not be long and he has another time commitment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized before we proceed in the manner that I have outlined.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, it would be my intention on this side to accept this amendment.

I assumed we would go to the amendment from the Senator from Washington.

I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, quick housekeeping.

Amendment No. 2088

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back to the Akaka amendment.

I call for a vote on the Akaka amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2087

Mr. President, I move that we go back to the Cantwell amendment.

Mr. President, I am not familiar with this issue, but I have asked members of the Energy Committee about it, and they have indicated opposition to the Cantwell amendment. There are some members of that committee who are on their way here. In the meantime, I will share with my colleagues the contents of a memorandum with respect to the Cantwell amendment that has been provided to Senator Domenici.

In this memorandum, the following objections are raised.

First:

FERC has and is using its authority to stop fraud and

manipulation. . . .

FERC has demonstrated that it will use the full extent of

its authority to assure honest, fair wholesale electricity

markets.

FERC has taken a number of initiatives which are listed in the memo and which I will share with Members if the appropriate members of the Energy Committee do not arrive.

The second objection to the Cantwell amendment is that it is too vague. It is suggested that:

It is written in such general terms that it will lead to

greater uncertainty. A general ban on manipulation will not

help companies determine what conduct amounts to manipulation

and what conduct is appropriate behavior in a competitive

market. . . . [A] blanket prohibition on ``manipulation,''

without defining the elements of what constitutes

manipulation . . . could have a chilling effect on the market

without meaningfully adding to the protections already

available to electricity customers under existing law.

The third objection is that:

The Cantwell Amendment could lead to duplication and

confusion among the agencies.

The enabling statutes of the Commodity and Futures Trading

Commission (CFTC) and the Securities Exchange Commission

(SEC) already contain broad prohibitions against conduct that

is intended to manipulate markets. Adding such another broad

general prohibition to the Federal Power Act would only lead

to unnecessary duplication and potential conflict between

various enforcement agencies.

In addition, the Federal Power Act already prohibits

wholesale electricity prices that are not ``just and

reasonable.'' Therefore, FERC has the authority to

investigate electricity prices and to require refunds if

prices are not ``just or reasonable'' or modify contracts if

it is in the public interest to do so.

The House and Senate Energy bills both would enhance FERC's

existing refund authority and increase civil and criminal

penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act.

The memo makes the point that this issue has been addressed in the Energy bill, and that is the place for it to be done.

The next objection raised is:

The number of Federal investigations and prosecutions by a

broad array of agencies demonstrates there is no need for the

Cantwell Amendment.

Federal agencies have been and continue to be active in

investigating criminal offenses in the energy industry.

These agencies as listed in the memorandum include the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States Postal Service, and numerous U.S. Attorney's offices across the country.

Through ``cooperative enforcement,'' these agencies have

focused on investigations of possible round trip trading,

false reporting and fraud and manipulation by energy

companies and their affiliates, employees and agents. There

have been a number of arrests, settlements and continued

investigations and prosecutions reported based on these

agencies' efforts.

And the argument is made that:

The Cantwell Amendment will not improve or change these

actions.

Then reference is made to:

The Domenici Electricity Amendment effectively deals with

market manipulation.

This is the amendment that is part of the Energy bill that is now in conference. The memo outlines all the reasons why that particular amendment is sufficient.

As I say, I am waiting for a member of the Energy Committee to come make these arguments with perhaps a little more background than I have. I would like to move to a vote on this amendment, so I ask, before I would suggest the absence of a quorum, if the Senator from Washington would agree to a vote, let us say, at 4:20. Would that be a sufficient period of time for the Senator?

The Senator is suggesting we vote right now? I am willing. I am anxious to move as much time as possible. If the Senator is ready, if there is no one else who wants to speak on this issue----

I see the Senator from Nevada is on the floor, and he may wish to speak.

I would ask, then, following the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, if no other Senator has come wishing to speak, we proceed directly to the vote.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another unanimous consent request?

I would propound a unanimous consent request that the vote occur at 4:30.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I would be happy to vote on the Cantwell amendment immediately and then go on to other business connected to the bill.

Mr. President, I understand there are several Senators who have amendments they would like to offer. Senator Dayton has one. Senator Bingaman has one. We have not yet had an opportunity to go through the Bingaman amendment which came to us relatively recently. So I would prefer to go to Senator Dayton to give us a little more time to examine the Bingaman amendment, but that could be the decision of the minority. I prefer to go to Senator Dayton's amendment next if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Dayton if he would give us some indication of how long he thinks he will take on his amendment and see if we cannot enter into a time agreement so that we can know when we might be able to vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that we vote on the Dayton amendment at 5:15.

I ask the Senator if he would withhold for just a moment. We are trying to pull a few things together. But I am more than happy to have the time appropriately spent other than in a quorum call.

If the Senator will withhold for just a few moments, I will be in a position to respond.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee is anxious to come over to develop the issue of the budget point of order for emergency designation with respect to the amendment offered by Senator Dayton. As he has indicated, it is $6.3 billion, and there is no offset in the bill. Our bill is $1 billion below last year's fiscal year 302(b) allocation, and therefore this is obviously a very significant number.

Until the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has an opportunity to be here to review this matter with us, I would be willing to allow the Senator from New Mexico to begin the description of his amendment because I understand he would like to get that done. He has a timeframe tonight. And we could view the possibility of voting on both amendments at some point when the debate on both amendments has subsided rather than keeping the time tied up in a quorum call.

With recognition of the pressures the Senator from New Mexico is under, I would like to perhaps move ahead on both of those amendments on a double track situation.

All right. There is objection. Therefore, I do not pursue that. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois this might be a good time to hear from him.

Madam President, I see no other Senators wishing to speak on this matter. The chairman of the Budget Committee has not presented himself. But speaking on his behalf, I will raise a budget point of order about the emergency designation.

Utah is at the bull's eye of the drought. We have more drought problems in Utah perhaps than any other State, and it is with some reluctance that I raise this point of order. But this is $6.3 billion, and there is no offset for it.

I think if it is of value, it is of sufficient value that it is worthwhile to have a supermajority to support going $6.3 billion into an emergency. I think an emergency designation for this much money is something for which this procedure is designed.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation contained in the pending amendment, that it violates section 502 of the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and therefore is not in order.

Madam President, the amendment is still pending. It is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset. Therefore, I believe we should vote the amendment down. We have already said this was the last vote today, but if the Senator wants a vote, I suppose there could be one. This is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset with the emergency designation stricken.

Under those circumstances, Madam President, I raise the point of order that this is in violation of the Budget Act since there is no emergency designation and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam President, we now have a group of amendments which have been offered by a number of Senators and examined by a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, all of which have been agreed to and cleared. I would like to send them to the desk, asking for a voice vote on each one. In every case, the amendment is in behalf of myself and Senator Kohl--I apologize, Madam President, there are other Senators involved. It is just the first amendment that is in behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.

Amendment No. 2091

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, due to increased projections of unemployment which result in higher participation and food inflation, it is necessary that we increase the Food Stamp Program by $2.2 billion, and this amendment will enable all qualified applicants to participate in this mandatory program. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this amendment will ensure that USDA funding is not used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products. This provision was inadvertently left out of the subcommittee bill. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this technical amendment clarifies the statutory authority for special assistance to the nuclear affected islands. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Murkowski, Stevens, Inouye, and Akaka, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, this amendment will prohibit the food stamp benefit for participants in Alaska and Hawaii from decreasing in the fiscal year 2004. The amendment has been cleared by the Agriculture Committee, and I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Snowe and Dorgan and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, this amendment would expand the boundaries of the Arrostook Empowerment Zone in the State of Maine and the Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone in the State of North Dakota to encompass the remaining area of the respective counties not currently included in the empowerment zone designation. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Levin and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, this amendment prohibits APHIS from requiring affected States to match emergency funding provided by the Federal Government. Many States are currently experiencing their own fiscal problems and may not have sufficient funds to provide a match. If a State is unable to provide matching funds, Federal funds would not be released to address the emergency situation under this proposed rule. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment would allow three communities in the State of Oklahoma to be eligible for the Rural Community Advancement Program. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, the amendment would allow rural communities with a population of less than 20,000 people to be eligible for broadband grants and loans. This amendment has been cleared by the Senate Agriculture Committee. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inouye and ask for its immediate consideration.

The amendment allows the Secretary of Agriculture to designate any portion of Honolulu County as a rural area for purposes of programs under the rural development mission area. I ask for a voice vote.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

The amendment would allow the Government National Mortgage Association, Ginnie Mae, to join other financial institutions in participating in the Multifamily Housing Guarantee Program. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment would allow a small town which does not have sufficient internal resources to utilize an outside not-for-profit party to perform the service for which the grant was made. For instance, if a community received a grant for a childcare facility, the community could contract with a third party to provide the childcare.

I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Brownback and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment adds four flood control structures in Kansas to the list of projects which may receive financial and technical assistance through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment adds the State of Utah to the list of States in which a processing worker demonstration pilot project is to be initiated. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment directs the Secretary to move forward with the implementation of the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Grassley and Dorgan and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, in recognition that this is the last one of this stack, I ask for a voice vote.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator and to all Senators that I was prepared to go on further tonight but I have been informed that no amendments will be offered tonight. Therefore, no more debate and certainly no more votes. I would be happy to welcome the amendment from the Senator when he is prepared to offer it. It is certainly my intention to go forward tomorrow. I hope the decision not to offer any amendments tonight will be lifted by tomorrow and that we will have amendments before us and therefore items to debate and vote on.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if he wanted to offer that amendment tonight and debate it tonight, certainly that would be very much in order. It has been made very clear there will be no further votes tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Craig.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Schumer.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Miller.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Frist and Daschle.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2090.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

This language has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for bringing this issue to my attention. It is evident that the funding used for Maine's Cooperative Beaver Management Program has been used wisely. I expect APHIS to continue its cooperative wildlife agreements with the funding provided by the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill, and I will work in conference to see that these funds continue to be available for the State of Maine.

Improving Emergency Communications Systems

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Mississippi bringing these changes to my attention and will work with him to incorporate them in the statement of managers.

Yes, I will work with the House of Representatives during conference negotiations to ensure that the $800,000 is provided to address animal fighting.

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and I agree our intention was to maintain increased funding for studies and evaluations.

rus telemedicine language

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Mississippi bringing this language to my attention and will work with him to incorporate it in the statement of the managers.

I understand the Senator's interest in this important survey. The Senator is correct that the committee intends that the Department maintain this important work. We will continue to work with the Senator in this area as this bill moves forward.

I would be pleased.

That is correct.

How does the Senator from Georgia wish to proceed since $268,000 has been designated in this bill for the Alliance for Food Protection project?

I thank the Senator from Georgia for his explanation, and I will be happy to work with him during conference to address his concerns.

That is my understanding as well.

I was not.

I agree.

That is correct.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico and will encourage the Department of Agriculture to review the current situation. If the review warrants a testing facility, I will suggest that the Department of Agriculture consider establishing a testing facility in the State of New Mexico.

NutriCore Northeast and Geisinger Rural Aging Study (GRAS)

Mr. President, I am more than willing to acknowledge my colleague from Pennsylvania with regard to his two projects.

I thank my distinguished colleague for bringing these important projects to my attention. While this committee is working within a very tight budget, I will give your requests all due consideration.

I understand the Senator's concern and would also like to see that USDA make that distinction.

That is correct.

I appreciate Senator Chafee and Senator Reed bringing this situation in Rhode Island to the attention of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. For all of the reasons that my colleagues have raised, I agree that it makes sense to try to eradicate this organism from American poultry flocks. I look forward to working with the two Senators and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, to develop language that directs APHIS to play an active role in depopulating these flocks in Rhode Island.

I appreciate my colleague's comments and the opportunity to discuss the USDA Southern Plains Range Research Station. I am aware of this project's importance to Oklahoma and the Oklahoma delegation. My colleague is uniquely aware of the constraints of the budget we must work within, and of the many areas in need of funding. I look forward to working with my colleague to address the issue of funding for Phase II of construction

at the Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward.

Mr. President, I would be happy if Senator Murkowski explained this provision in greater detail.

Mr. President, I would like Ms. Murkowski to explain her rationale for including this provision in the manager's amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski for explaining the need for her provision in the manager's amendment to this important legislation.

ARS Research

I thank the Senator and I share her assessment of the importance of agricultural research and the value of the USDA and its State partners.

I did not know that.

In spite of this, I know that the research conducted in Arkansas benefits us all.

I share the Senator's commitment to agricultural research and to the ARS. And, I recognize the importance of the ARS research conducted in Arkansas to your State, to the region, and to the Nation. During our conference deliberations with the House, I will keep the importance of these research activities in mind. I look forward to working with my colleagues from the House in conference to insure the highest level of funding possible taking into consideration national research priorities. I am sure the Arkansas units will rank highly on that list of priorities. I thank the Senator for bringing this important matter to my attention.

travel and purchase card abuse

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa brought an issue to me which he hopes to remedy through Agriculture Appropriations. The issue involves the Department of Agriculture and the documented fraud and abuse occurring within both the purchase and travel card programs. I would like to ask the Senator from Iowa for further clarification.

I concur with my colleague's remarks. We will allow USDA to remedy the problems my colleague from Iowa has described. If USDA does not take action immediately and make substantive advances to fix these problems, we'll likely give them something more than encouragement in next year's agriculture appropriations legislation.

I thank the senior Senator from South Carolina for bringing this matter to my attention. I encourage you to pursue this designation with NRCS. Additionally, In encourage NRCS to give every consideration to the Senator's proposal.

I thank the Senator from New York for his kind remarks, and would be happy to engage in a colloquy with him.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New York, and assure him that I will take his concerns into consideration when conferencing the House and Senate bills.

And I the same.

I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Kohl, in voicing my support for this project, and also hope that it will be added in conference.

The Senator from Iowa has explained to me that his State is in need of specialized assistance through funding for a viticulture technician to provide on-site technical assistance.

Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from North Carolina that I appreciate the suggestion particularly in light of the budget constraints that we face. I will be happy to look into this matter to see if there is a workable solution that will achieve the desired result.

Mr. President, I concur with my colleague's sentiments on the importance of multi-agency involvement in rural development. I appreciate the Senator's comments and look forward to our continuing to work together to support this effort when this bill goes to conference.

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

I ask that there now be a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Aviation Security. The first part of the hearing will be closed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 2 p.m. for a hearing titled ``The Report of the Presidential Commission on the U.S. Postal Service: Preserving Access and Affordability.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Wednesday, November 5, 2003, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill: Patricia Raymond, Fitzhugh Elder, Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, Galen Fountain, Jessica Arden, William Simpson, Meaghan McCarthy, Larissa Sommer, and Mike Neilson.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 259 which was introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and any statements thereon be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 310, H.R. 1442.

I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 240, S. 589.

I ask unanimous consent that the Collins substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on November 5, 2003, by the President of the United States: Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol to Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Treaty Document 108-10).

I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, November 6. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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 for 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee, and the second 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and the consideration of Calendar No. 310, the nomination of William Pryor, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Eleventh Circuit, and that there then be 60 minutes equally divided for debate on the nomination prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture.

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow, following morning business, there will be 60 minutes for debate prior to the cloture vote on the Pryor nomination. If cloture is not invoked on the nomination, the Senate is expected to resume consideration of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is hoped that we can finish that bill at an early hour during tomorrow's session, and therefore Senators should expect a very busy day tomorrow with rollcall votes occurring throughout.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Sessions.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interior conference report and urge its approval. While there are a number of important matters addressed through this bill, I would like to make particular note for the record the absence of any limitation on the Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, between the State of Utah and Department of the Interior regarding the use of a process for resolving R.S. 2477 claims through the Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA disclaimer of interest authority.

This agreement establishes a process through which the State will identify State- and county-owned roads that run across public lands and meet certain criteria. The State will then apply to the Department of the Interior, DOI, for disclaimers on those roads. Each application will be examined and determination will be made as to whether each road meets the strict standards set forth in the MOU. If the road qualifies, DOI will issue a recordable disclaimer of interest for that road. While there had been some action in the House to prevent this process form going forward, I am pleased that effort was rejected and that, upon approval of the conference report and its approval by the President, the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior will be free to pursue this agreement without limitation.

I believe that this bill is an affirmation of the good faith effort that the parties have made to resolve some of these long standing questions through the MOU, and affirms limitations imposed by the parties themselves in the MOU. Those limitations imposed by the parties ensure that claims in national parks, national wildlife refuges, congressionally designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas will not be considered through this MOU. I also believe that it is important that they move forward with this process and give the counties an opportunity to have a local transportation system with certainty. The conclusion reached by the conferees, to allow this MOU to go forward, will allow the parties to resolve these issues through the recordable disclaimer authority as designed under FLPMA, rather than through the court system. This will bring the issue to resolution faster, provide for public participation, and will be less costly to the taxpayer than litigation.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I regret that I must rise to speak in opposition to certain provisions of the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004 relating to litigation now pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a class action lawsuit entitled Cobell v. Norton. In the Cobell case, a class of several hundred thousand individual Indians are seeking an accounting of funds held in trust for them by the United States.

As early as 1876, a Philadelphia newspaper reported that the government was unable to account for the funds it held in trust for individual Indians and Indian tribes. Since that time, the amount of funds for which the government cannot account has grown exponentially. The parties to the litigation agree that more than $13 billion have gone into the individual Indian trust accounts, but in the aggregate, the outstanding balance in those accounts

today is little over half a million dollars.

As you know, the United States acts as the trustee for thousands of individual Indians who did not ask to be removed from their aboriginal lands, to be forcibly placed on reservations, to have their lands allotted against their will, or to have this trusteeship imposed on them. And yet these people who have suffered great deprivation at the hands of the government seek not to hold the government liable for the loss of their funds--they seek only to have a proper accounting of the funds that the United States holds in trust for them.

However, today, with the adoption of this conference report, the United States Government will again deal the Indians yet another blow-- by denying them the right to seek a simple accounting in a court of law of the funds that are rightfully theirs. And people in Indian country are asking, and I think justifiably so, would the Congress single out any other group of Americans for such treatment?

The relevant language of the conference report seeks to prevent the provisions of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, or any other statute, or any principle of common law from being construed or applied to require the Department of the Interior to commence or continue the conduct of an historical accounting of individual Indian money accounts until the earlier of the following shall have occurred: No. 1, Congress shall have amended the American Indian Trust Fund-- Management Reform Act of 1994 to delineate the specific historical accounting obligations of the Department of the Interior with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust; or No. 2, December 31, 2004.

We have consulted with Senate legal counsel on the language and we are advised that this provision is of questionable constitutionality as it relates to the separation of powers amongst the three branches of government. Contrary to the principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 150 years ago in Marbury. v. Madison, that it is the exclusive task of the Judicial Branch to determine the application of the law to a case, this provision of the conference report reaches into the province of the Article III courts by restricting those courts in what law they may apply in the Cobell litigation.

On several occasions, I have joined the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in urging the parties to the Cobell litigation to enter into negotiations that would enable them to reach a fair and voluntary settlement to this litigation. I deeply regret the fact that thus far negotiations between the parties have not borne fruit. Nonetheless, I remain committed to working with the administration, the Cobell plaintiffs, and our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact legislation that will provide a process for reaching a fair and voluntary settlement.

Accordingly, I cannot support this effort to deny to our Nation's First Americans a right that is guaranteed to all other citizens of the United States, while providing them with no alternative means of obtaining full and fair relief.

Madam President, one of the facts that those of us who live in the Washington area have grown accustomed to is that the world looks different through the eyes of the reporters for the Washington Post and the reporters for the Washington Times. My wife and I sometimes play the little game of opening both papers simultaneously and looking at the two headlines side by side. Usually, the Washington Times says things that sound good from the Republican point of view and the Washington Post says things that sound good from the Democratic point of view.

The interesting thing this morning is that both papers covered the same story, and both papers said basically the same thing.

I went into the cloakroom, and I gathered some other papers to see if the headlines were the same there as well. I have them here. Let's start with the Washington Times and the Washington Post.

The Washington Times says:

Growth Erupts in Summer Order. Consumers, Businesses, Go on

a Spending Spree.

Out of the Washington Post--they treat that not quite as enthusiastically, but they say:

U.S. Economic Growth Surges. Output Rises at the Highest

Rate Since 1984, but Jobs Still Decline.

So the Washington Post puts in a little bash there for the President that the Washington Times does not.

If we go to the Wall Street Journal, which some think of as a mouthpiece for the Republican National Committee, their headline is:

Higher Gear, Economy Turned in its Best Quarter in Nearly

Two Decades. GDP Surged 7.2 Percent in Quarter on Broad Based

Gains. Bush Team Trumpet Data.

To balance that from the Wall Street Journal, let's go to the newspaper some consider the house organ of the Democratic National Committee, the New York Times, and their headline is:

Economy Records Speediest Growth Since the Mid-80's. Is

Good News Here for Good? Bush Hopes So. Third Quarter Data

Surge in Spending Helped by Rebates May Not Persist.

Then I picked up USA Today, the screaming headline:

7.2 Percent GDP Growth, Fastest in 19 Years. Economists

Credit Tax Relief and Shoppers.

For one day at least, everybody agrees that the No. 1 story is the tremendous performance turned in by the American economy in the third quarter, and the headlines trumpet the numbers, 7.2 percent GDP growth.

I would like to go behind the numbers. I would like to add a few numbers and do what I can to try to put this performance in perspective.

No. 1, we have to recognize what even the New York Times has recognized, which is this is an extraordinary accomplishment, and this is a sign of very good times.

I notice a quote from Howard Dean, who is running for President on the Democratic side, that indicates he is a little disappointed in this; he is a little unhappy that Americans are earning more money, that disposable income is up, that the economy is booming. Perhaps he was hoping he could ride into the White House on a wave of consumer dissatisfaction. If that is his hope, at least the third-quarter numbers say he has to find something else for which to hope.

But it is true that the numbers we have here are not sustainable long term, and that is not necessarily bad because what we are looking for is not a single quarter of extraordinary growth. What we are looking for is a sustained period of recovery. The signs are there that we are, indeed, in such a period. It is not just the 7.2 percent growth in GDP we need to pay attention to; it is some other numbers. Let me address some of those numbers.

They are in the newspaper stories, some of them buried a little further than I would do it if I were writing the story, but the first number that is of significance is the growth in business investment. Yes, as the headlines indicate, the tax relief and the shoppers are responsible for this, but the tax relief is, indeed, something of a one-time phenomenon. The mailing out of the checks for the child tax credit put more money in the hands of parents just before back-to- school shopping, and that showed up in the shopping figures.

Furthermore, the combination of the lowering of withholding rates along with the child tax credits causes people to go out and make some very significant purchases. New cars went up as a significant part of this performance in the third quarter, and you don't buy a new car every quarter. Undoubtedly, you will see some tapering off of some of these major purchases. So we can say that the fourth quarter will not be at the 7.2 percent level as far as GDP is concerned.

One of the newspapers says it will fall all the way down to 4 percent. Madam President, 4 percent on an annual basis is very robust and wonderful growth for an economy as mature as ours. If we could maintain a 4 percent average for the next 2 or 3 years, we

would all be very happy about that. So those who are saying the 7.2 won't last and we will fall all the way down to 4 percent should remember there was a time not far distant in our history when we would have been very happy with 3.5 percent. I will take 4 percent any day as a steady, stable growth in the economy.

Let's go back to the business investment number, the number that did not get as much attention as the 7.2 percent GDP number. Business investment grew at 11.1 percent, up from 7.3 percent the previous quarter. The thing to remember is that 7.3 percent is, in and of itself, considered a very strong indication of further growth, and this is the number that holds the promise of future jobs because if business is investing, business eventually is going to have to start hiring.

Let me put the 7.3 percent number in some perspective. As I say, in historic terms, 7.3 percent would be a good number, but we have seen business investment go down, not a positive number of any kind, a negative number for 9 out of the last 11 quarters. To have it come out of negative territory, be so strongly positive as to be at 7.4 percent, and then see the next quarter come in at 11.1, this is as strong a signal as we are going to get that the economy, which has been in recovery but struggling ever since the recession ended, is now in a period of takeoff for sustained growth for the coming year.

One of the other numbers the economists always look at is the question of inventories: How many goods do you have on the shelf, Mr. or Mrs. business person? How many goods do you have that are waiting to be sold? If the shelves are full, you are probably not going to be buying any more until they start to come down, until your inventories start to fall. Usually when you have a period of growth like we have experienced in the third quarter, your inventories go up because people are stocking their shelves as the sales are strong.

Inventories went down in the third quarter. The sales were so strong that they not only took everything we could produce but they reduced inventories that were already low even further, which means that for the fourth quarter and into the next year--first, second, and third quarters--businesses have a major challenge to restock those depleted inventories, which is another sign that there will be growth, another sign that there will be jobs, another sign that this recovery is well underway and has firm traction.

Take the three numbers and put them together: 7.2 percent increase in GDP, substantially more than anybody anticipated; 11.1 percent increase in business investment, substantially more than anybody had anticipated; and a reduction in inventory of .67 percent from the previous level, and you have the profile of a recovery that is very robust.

What caused this recovery? Certainly, one can say it was due. Certainly one can say this was part of the business cycle reasserting itself. We had the excesses of the 1990s that felt so wonderful while we were in them but that were so excessive that the reaction to them felt painful when it came.

It now appears we have worked through most of those excesses. We have paid the price for the bubble of the late 1990s and we are beginning to get back on solid footing. However, one must credit President Bush's initiative in pushing tax cuts at the right time and at the right level to accelerate this growth.

Virtually every one of these papers I have gone through at one place or another in the story will admit, triumphantly in the case of the Washington Times, grudgingly in the case of the New York Times, that the Bush tax cut made a significant contribution to this growth.

I have already recited how it works with respect to consumer spending, but the consumer spending could be a one-time phenomenon and not hold if it is indeed tied to the receipt of checks such as the child credit. However, if the consumer spending has been accelerated by virtue of the reduction in withholding rates, something President Bush insisted on over and over again and that had the greatest resistance in this Chamber, we can say that portion of the tax cuts will, in fact, have a permanent impact on the growth; that that is a gift that will, in fact, keep on giving and we will see continued consumer spending as people have more money left in their paychecks.

What is the outlook in terms of the other political number we hear over and over again in this Chamber, which is the deficit? One of the greatest arguments that was made as we were debating the Bush tax cut was it would make the deficit swell and soar beyond all comprehension and ultimately leave us bankrupt as a nation.

There is another interesting number, one that has not received this kind of headline throughout the country but that is very important. At one point, as the economists were making their projections with respect to the deficit, they said the deficit for this fiscal year, the year that ended September 30, 2003, would be as high as $455 billion. That was a number that came out of the Office of Management and Budget at one point, as they made their guess as to what the economy would be doing and how much money would be available.

We have heard that $455 billion figure repeatedly, particularly from those who were opposed to the President's tax cut and who have been opposed to the supplemental appropriation for Iraq. They are saying we have a $455 billion deficit and we are going to try to add $87 billion on top of it; that is irresponsible; we cannot possibly do that.

Well, an interesting thing happened on the way to the closing of the books. With a stronger economy and with spending coming in at lower levels, we began to see higher revenues and, therefore, lower estimates. As the year got nearer to its close, some economists were saying the deficit might even be as low as $400 billion instead of the $455 billion; we might even be below the magic $400 billion number. I do not know what is magic about the $400 billion number, but it sounds good to pick that number.

Then we began to hear from the Congressional Budget Office: yes, the deficit will clearly be below $400 billion. How much? It could be as much as $20 billion below $400 billion. It could be as low as $380 billion.

The numbers are now in. The books have been tentatively closed, and it is $374 billion. It is $26 billion below the $400 billion mark and it is $81 billion below the $455 billion that was being talked about just a few months ago.

It is purely a coincidence--there is no connection whatsoever--but it is interesting that the actual number below the highest amount that was forecast is almost identical to the $87 billion of the Iraq supplemental. In other words, if we take the actual number of $374 billion and add the $87 billion, we come to the theoretical number close to the $455 billion we were talking about.

All of us would love to sponsor legislation that could cut $80 billion a year out of the deficit. We would stand before our constituents and take enormous credit. We would say, are we not wonderful? We have eliminated $80 billion of the deficit.

The economy did it for us. I think we have to credit the combination of the Bush tax cuts with the growth of the economy in the business cycle, with making us a little bit humble, of telling the politicians we do not control the events nearly as much as we pretend to in our speeches.

The most important thing to remember is it is the economy itself that creates all Federal revenue. Money does not come from the budget. Money comes from the economy. Our job is to do whatever we can to get out of the way of intelligent market forces and allow the economy to grow as strongly as it can on its own. I think that is what Alan Greenspan has done at the Federal Reserve. I think that is what President Bush has led us to do in the Congress with the tax cuts, and I think the unanimous statements out of all of the papers today indicate it is working.

I send my congratulations to Chairman Greenspan, my congratulations to President Bush, and my best wishes for all of us that this will, in fact, continue.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Miller and I be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1828.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Idaho and I rise to give a case study example of what he is talking about. We will give States and specifics here. They are similar to those that came from the Senator from Alaska.

In 1991, a forest health aerial detection survey was made in Utah that discovered the bark beetle in certain parts of the Dixie National Forest. Forest

health specialists advised that it might be necessary to suppress the epidemic by removing some of the infested trees and thinning some of the standings. At the time they made that decision, this photo depicts what the forest looked like: healthy, green, a place that was of some pride to the people who lived there. This is called the Sidney Valley Recovery Project, proposed as part of the strategy to suppress the spread of the epidemic into that area.

As soon as this was announced, three different environmental groups filed appeals of the project and, naturally, it was delayed while those appeals were heard. Finally, after the delay, the Forest Service was upheld, so the appeals were examined and found to be without merit. The Forest Service was upheld. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance chose to file a suit in Federal court. There were the typical delays connected with litigation, and the Federal court finally threw out the lawsuit.

So you had the appeals to begin with; they were disavowed; and then you had a lawsuit. When that was disavowed, OK, now you can go ahead with your effort to protect the forest. The only trouble was, at that point, this picture depicts what the forest looked like. These are not trees with leaves turned because it was fall. These are pine trees. The reason they are brown is that they are dead. If you drive through the Dixie Forest, which I have done, it almost makes you sick at how terribly decimated the forest has become. The only reason is that the Forest Service's professional managers, trained in dealing with these kinds of epidemics, were prevented from going in there by special interest groups until it was too late. I am sure there were mailings made in these environmental groups saying: Help save the Dixie Forest from the people who would build roads.

Well, they saved the Dixie Forest from the people who might put in logging roads, but they killed it in the process. The epidemic has now spread and there is no stopping it now. There is no going back. There is no saying, let's reverse this. The trees are dead and the Dixie Forest is a blight. The people who live there and know how to take care of these things are sick at heart at what has been done, while those special interest groups, most of whose members do not live in Utah, can claim victory. Well, they cannot claim victory in the lawsuit because they lost the lawsuit. They can only claim victory if their goal was to destroy the forest.

It is summarized by one of the former managers of the Dixie Forest who says: ``It leaves us with the strategy of win the lawsuit, lose the forest.''

I have a terrible time understanding why people who claim to be ``friends'' of the forest, ``friends'' of the environment, end up producing this kind of result. That is why I have joined as a cosponsor of this amendment. I applaud the administration for their initiative in saying let's have healthy forests. Fortunately, the Dixie Forest has not yet caught fire. But the trees are just as dead either way. The blight is there just as much either way. We may have been spared the devastation of fire for the communities around the Dixie, but we have not been spared the devastation of the epidemic that has destroyed this portion of the Dixie Forest.

For that reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to this debate either in person or over the television. I will not try to add to it with a plethora of statistics, forecasts, or predictions. Rather, I want to deal with some of the statements that have been made including some we have just heard from the Senator from New York and try to do a little math of a very simple and direct kind and ask a few questions.

First, the Senator from New York said the United States produces most of the greenhouse gasses. My understanding is the correct number is 25 percent of the greenhouse gasses produced in the world as a whole. That is the largest of any single country. It does not constitute most. But it is a plurality and pluralities win elections so that puts us in first place.

Now let us assume for the sake of following this through that we achieve a savings of 10 percent. I am not sure we will. No one is really sure in all of the predictions, dire and rosy, that are made with respect to this legislation how much the savings will be, but we will pick a number easy to calculate, 10 percent. That means, if the laws of mathematics have not changed, we would reduce the world emissions by 2.5 percent because 10 percent of 25 percent is 2.5 percent.

The question then arises, will the rest of the world stay static while we reduce the total by 2.5 percent or will a combination of China, India, Russia, Australia, what have you, increase the total by 2.5 percent so that the net effect in the atmosphere of America doing this is zero. That is a very likely scenario. The net effect of the United States doing this as far as manmade emissions are concerned would be zero. Yes, we could reduce theoretically ours by 10 percent. That would be made up by the rest of the world.

The question arises, how much benefit is there to see to it that the overall world situation is as it is now with the United States producing no significant impact on the total?

The next question, what do we do if we reduce it by 10 percent? How do we do that? Obviously, we will need the power. Indeed, we will need substantially more power between now and the year 2010 if we are going to reduce the emissions that come from fossil fuel to generate the power we will have to go someplace else. There are a variety of places we can go.

One we hear often is we should use natural gas. We should replace coal with natural gas. That is a good idea. But let us understand something right now. We have in the United States currently a shortage of natural gas. As Alan Greenspan pointed out, that is one of our major economic challenges. He also has pointed out, natural gas is the one fossil fuel we cannot import. In order to import natural gas we have to have a pipeline, unless you liquefy it, and that is tremendously expensive, and we do not have the ports available to receive natural gas in liquefied form. The only places we can import natural gas are Mexico and Canada, and we are doing that.

If you look at a geological chart of the United States you find there is plenty of natural gas in the United States, but a very large percentage of that is on public land. Now the people who are telling us we must reduce greenhouse gas, namely the environmental groups, are the same people who are telling us we cannot drill for natural gas in the United States because that somehow will desecrate the public lands. I am not sure the land cares whether there is a drilling rig on it or whether there is a pipeline running across it, but certainly the Sierra Club cares. They say absolutely no drilling for natural gas on public lands.

If we cannot get to the natural gas, we will continue to use coal. Let's use clean coal. We have enough clean coal in the State of Utah to heat, light, drive the city of San Francisco for the next 300 years. We proposed mining that. Clean coal, low-sulfur coal would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who got very upset at the idea we might start to use clean coal? The Sierra Club. They got President Clinton to declare a national monument right on top of the potential clean coal to make sure there would never be any coal mined from that place because environmentally they do not want any coal mines.

Well, we cannot use natural gas because we cannot get it off our public lands. We cannot use the clean coal in the West because we cannot get it off

our public lands. What is our alternative? Nuclear. That will do it. That is what they do in Europe. That is why Europe is in favor of Kyoto because they do not use fossil fuel to generate electricity; they use nuclear power.

So let's have nuclear plants all over the United States in order to produce the 10 percent reduction called for in this bill. Is the Sierra Club ready to endorse and embrace nuclear? They will not let us drill for natural gas. They do not want us to use the clean coal and they absolutely do not want us to build nuclear plants.

All right. Where else do we go? Well, in the West, we get a portion of our power from hydroplants. Dams have been built to store water. And as the water tumbles down the front of the dam, why, we get power. And it is the goal of the Sierra Club, and other groups that are supporting this bill, to dynamite these dams. They want to drain Lake Powell and dynamite the dam.

It is very interesting, if I could make a quick historic aside, when my father was in the Senate, and they were talking about building the Glen Canyon Dam that would produce this power, the Sierra Club opposed it and said: We will never, ever need that much power. But, they said, if for some reason we are wrong, and we should need that power, there is no point in building the dam to provide the power because look at all the coal that is there. The coal is the coal that they moved to make sure would never get mined.

I could embrace the idea of reducing the emissions in a test fashion to see if it did indeed have any impact on global warming if I could see the way clear to produce the power some other way than the way we are doing it now.

I would say to the Senator from Connecticut, who has excellent contacts in the environmental world, if he would go back to those who are supporting this bill and say to them, ``In return for support of this bill, will you agree to drill for natural gas on public lands, to exploit low-sulfur coal where it exists on public lands, and to explore the possibility of more nuclear plants so that we don't become dependent on fossil fuel?'' I might very well be interested in cosponsoring and voting for this bill.

But until those who are driving the debate publicly are willing to address the question of how you replace the sources of power that would have to be eliminated if this bill should pass, I intend to vote against the bill.

I yield the floor.