Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to change the order in terms of the time agreement. I ask that I be recognized for 10 minutes. Following my presentation, Senator Reed be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Specter for 10 minutes, Senator Byrd for such time that he may require, and following Senator Byrd, Senator McConnell be recognized for such time as he may require.

Mr. President, yesterday the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a leasing program to enable the exploration, development, and production of Alaska's oil and gas resources in the Arctic Coastal Plain.

I come today to commend our House colleagues for taking this action. Opening the Coastal Plain to development will help stabilize energy prices, spur economic growth, and enhance our national security. The Coastal Plain is believed to be the second largest oilfield ever discovered in North America, capable of producing at least 1 million barrels of oil per day. The National Defense Council estimates the development of the resources in our Coastal Plain will create between 700,000 and 1 million American jobs.

A majority in both Houses of this Congress and 70 percent of all Americans support exploration and development of Alaska's Coastal Plain. Our Senate colleagues should join those in the House and act to authorize development of these domestic resources.

Going forward, the United States must increase domestic production to secure our energy independence. Our Nation is in the midst of an energy crisis. In 2003, gasoline cost $1.56 per gallon. This week, prices at the pump are averaging $2.88 per gallon in my State and in some places over $4 a gallon.

In the 1990s, natural gas prices in the lower 48, as we call it, averaged $2.50 per thousand cubic feet. Today, natural gas costs approximately $6 per thousand cubic feet, more than twice as much. This situation will only grow more serious. It is estimated that our LNG imports will increase by 500 percent in the near future. We also now face increased competition for that LNG from foreign nations.

In the last 14 years, India's oil consumption has doubled. China was the second largest oil importer in the world in 2004. According to the Energy Information Administration, by 2025, the world energy consumption will increase by 57 percent.

Americans cannot conserve our way out of this problem, and we cannot suspend the law of supply and demand. If we continue to lock up our lands, this country will not have the energy needed to keep up with the global economy. Conservation and alternative fuels are part of the overall solution, but to end

this crisis, we must also increase our domestic production of oil and gas resources.

In 2004, Congress provided the financial incentives to move forward with the Alaska natural gas pipeline. This pipeline, constructed to move 35 trillion cubic feet of gas known to be in the Prudhoe Bay area, when completed, will deliver about 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the American market.

I now have serious concerns about the process for this pipeline being constructed. Federal officials told me that it would take 44 months once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission receives an application to proceed with it. Congress can shorten this timeframe by declaring a state of emergency, and we have to realize that it is a national emergency with regard to our future gas supply. Congress cannot intervene, however, until the State of Alaska has taken action on this gas pipeline. The pipeline is to move gas from State lands, lands which the State of Alaska is the owner of, and the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 stipulated that if an application was not received by the Federal Government by 2006 for the construction of this pipeline, the Department of Energy could study the feasibility of a pipeline to be built and owned by the Federal Government. This study is now underway.

While Federal ownership is not the preferred course of action, given our Nation's current energy crisis and the emergency we face, this Nation must ensure that this project moves forward as quickly as possible.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Lord John Browne, the chief executive officer of the British Petroleum Company. Lord Browne told the paper: ``The growth for us in Alaska is gas.'' He was talking about, of course, the BP Company.

He said: ``Oil will continue, but gas will flip over and replace oil as the economic driver.'' He is talking about the enormous potential of gas in the Alaska economy. And he added that: ``Once our pipeline is approved, we can look forward to 50 years''--we can look forward to 50 years--``of increased gas supplies.''

Now, our State and the Federal Government have to act quickly so that we can begin to lay the foundation for this next 50 years of increased domestically produced natural gas.

Alaska's energy resources are needed now. Our State's potential is staggering. Trillions--I am told 32,000 trillion--of cubic feet of gas hydrates lie beneath the permafrost under the North Slope lands of Alaska. We have half the Nation's coastline. It holds some of the world's greatest prospects for ocean and tidal energy. Two-thirds of the Continental Shelf of the United States is off our State. In addition to that, we hope someday we will join the producers of ethanol. Ethanol can be made from wood chips. Our State forests contain millions of acres--millions of acres--of trees that are available for harvest, including particularly the Birch trees which I am told is a good source of material for this type of fuel to make ethanol.

Alaskans are pioneers, but we are also realists. It will take decades before our Nation can fully commercialize alternative energy sources. Solving our country's energy crisis will require conservation. It will require development of alternative fuels, but it also requires domestic production of our domestic oil and gas resources. Those who advocate only one or two of these approaches are misleading the American public. There is an urgent need for us to develop our domestic resources now, and there is an urgent need for us to develop alternative fuels and to conserve. We must do all of that, Mr. President.

Federal action is required and State action is required immediately if we are to develop this gas pipeline. This gas pipeline project must go forward, and authorization of the development of our resources in our Coastal Plain and the ANWR proposal is absolutely necessary. I urge the Senate to join the House in authorizing the development which was authorized by the Congress in 1980. For over 25 years we have had a majority in the Senate which approves the development and exploration and development of oil and gas resources of the Arctic plain. It is only a filibuster that has stopped us. America needs these resources to meet the increased demand for our energy and to provide for relief from our continued increased dependence upon foreign sources for energy. I urge the Senate to join our colleagues in the House and authorize development of our Coastal Plain. I also urge my own State of Alaska to move quickly to approve the application for the natural gas pipeline so it can move forward also.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Catherine and I were deeply saddened to learn of Lloyd's passing. Lloyd and his wife Beryl Ann or as she is known to friends, B.A. were part of our Senate family for 22 years. They were good friends to Catherine and me, and they were quite a couple. Their sense of humor could lighten any situation. I recall B.A. once read an erroneous news report that Lloyd was worth $70 million. She responded, ``Where is it?''

B.A. was a great companion and partner for Lloyd in all things, and our hearts go out to her and their three children and eight grandchildren.

Lloyd was Texan through and through. He used to tell stories about growing up on his father's ranch with the sign at the end of the road that read: ``To heck with the dog, beware of the owner.'' You would think someone raised up the road from a sign like that would have a temper, but nothing could have been further from the truth. Lloyd was gracious, composed, polished, and pressed. He was a true gentleman. ``Gravitas,'' he liked to say, ``is gray hair and a pressed suit.''

Lloyd was also a patriot. As fellow World War II veterans, we were comrades in the deepest sense of the word, and I admired him greatly. He was an accomplished legislator and statesman. He was also a dear friend.

Those in Alaska will never forget his support of our State. In 1981, Lloyd came to the floor and spoke in favor of a waiver that would enable the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Congress recently approved the financial incentives needed to begin this project--and we owe a great debt to Lloyd for always making sure those in the Senate never forgot how important the Alaska gas pipeline is to our country's energy independence.

Since Lloyd greatly respected the late House Speaker Sam Rayburn, I will close with one of Sam's sayings:

``You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you, unless you know how to follow, too.''

Mr. President, those are words to live by, and no one understood them better than Lloyd.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will resolve an ongoing dispute in our State concerning rights of way in the Copper River Valley region.

In 1906, Congress passed the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which allowed Alaska Natives to each claim up to 160 acres of land. Between 1906 and 1970, Alaska Natives filed allotment applications. The majority of these were filed

in the late 1960s. In 1971, Congress repealed the Alaska Native Allotment Act as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Congress then resolved all outstanding land claims by approving pending applications in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This approval was subject to valid existing rights.

When it settled the outstanding land claims in our State, Congress unintentionally created an issue which is now the subject of several lawsuits. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and the State of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric Association to run power lines across areas in our State which were later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed.

Since outstanding land claims were approved through ANILCA in 1980, several Native allottees have come forward and claimed the Copper Valley Electric Association is trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position, finding Native allotees have priority over other competing uses of land--in this case, those of the utility company--regardless of the fact that the rights of way were granted prior to the conveyance of the property in question to the allotees. This situation is still unresolved and has resulted in years of litigation.

We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and utility corridors. This issue threatens future infrastructure development in the region.

At my request, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reviewed this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions. This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will resolve an ongoing dispute in our State concerning rights of way in the Copper River Valley region.

In 1906, Congress passed the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which allowed Alaska Natives to each claim up to 160 acres of land. Between 1906 and 1970, Alaska Natives filed allotment applications. The majority of these were filed

in the late 1960s. In 1971, Congress repealed the Alaska Native Allotment Act as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Congress then resolved all outstanding land claims by approving pending applications in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This approval was subject to valid existing rights.

When it settled the outstanding land claims in our State, Congress unintentionally created an issue which is now the subject of several lawsuits. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and the State of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric Association to run power lines across areas in our State which were later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed.

Since outstanding land claims were approved through ANILCA in 1980, several Native allottees have come forward and claimed the Copper Valley Electric Association is trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position, finding Native allotees have priority over other competing uses of land--in this case, those of the utility company--regardless of the fact that the rights of way were granted prior to the conveyance of the property in question to the allotees. This situation is still unresolved and has resulted in years of litigation.

We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and utility corridors. This issue threatens future infrastructure development in the region.

At my request, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reviewed this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions. This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. This initiative is based on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and was authorized in ``The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.'' It requires the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--to implement a new documentation program by January 1, 2008. Once this program is in place, all U.S. citizens crossing the Canadian or Mexican border into our country must have a passport or other accepted documentation, such as a passcard, in order to verify their citizenship.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are now in the process of developing the rules needed to implement this initiative. The air and sea portion of this initiative could be implemented as early as next January.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are

evaluating two options for this initiative. The first would require a person entering the United States to present a passport. However, passports are expensive and require weeks to acquire. The second option is a passcard, which would be slightly cheaper, but would still require a background check and could only be used for travel between our country, Canada, and Mexico.

We must tighten our border security, but many have raised serious concerns about both of these options. It is unlikely the State Department will be able to process the flood of requests for passports and passcards that will come from this initiative by the deadline. The travel and business activities of millions of people will be adversely affected.

Take a military family reassigned from the lower 48 to Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. They must drive from the lower 48 through Canada with all of their belongings, and they may not have the opportunity or funds to acquire the passports this initiative will require.

Our State is the only State in the Nation which cannot be accessed by land without passing through a foreign country. Alaskans are very concerned about the impact this initiative will have on travel to and from our State.

Every year, a large number of people travel to Alaska from the lower 48 on the Alaska-Canada highway, Also known as the Al-Can. Each summer we routinely see RVs on the road with license plates from New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and elsewhere. These visitors will now need a passcard or a passport to drive to our State. I worry about how this will affect our tourism industry and the challenges it will create for Americans who want to visit one of the most beautiful places in our country.

These are just some of the issues which must be considered before implementing this plan. I believe the department of homeland security and the State department are operating under an unrealistic timeframe. We must ensure they have enough time to properly test and implement this system, which includes biometrics and new border security equipment.

Those of us in Alaska share a special relationship with our friends in Canada. It would be unfortunate if a hastily imposed initiative negatively affected movement in and out of Canada, or negatively affected our relationship with our neighbors.

The deadline Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security is fast approaching. Little progress has been made. We must pass this amendment to give them more time.

There is just too much at stake to rush this, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, today I introduce a bipartisan transportation security bill, which is a joint Commerce and Banking Committee bipartisan package co-sponsored by Senators Inouye, Shelby, Sarbanes, and 37 of our colleagues. This bill would dramatically enhance our Nation's port, rail, and transit security systems. The port and rail provisions of this package are identical to provisions of the transportation security bill, S. 1052, which was reported unanimously by the Commerce Committee last year. The transit provisions of the package are identical to those reported unanimously by the Banking Committee.

The events of 9/11 made clear that Congress needed to address the vulnerabilities within the Nation's transportation systems and dramatically increase security measures to protect the essential interstate flow of commerce.

Even before 9/11, the Commerce Committee led the Senate's effort to achieve the delicate balance between improved transportation security and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. In the weeks and months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Commerce Committee developed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which was signed into law by the President in 2002. The committee later expanded

MTSA by developing the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.

In MTSA, the Commerce Committee called on both public and private sector entities, including Federal agencies, the port community, vessel owners, shippers, and earners, to play a role in dramatically enhancing maritime security. The International Maritime Organization followed suit with its own improvements, many of which were based on the foundation set forth in MTSA.

The Commerce Committee spearheaded the establishment of a harmonized security credential for all transportation workers, authorizing the creation of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, program in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (2001), and twice more in the Maritime Transportation Security Acts of 2002 and 2004. Additional statutory authority from the PATRIOT Act reinforced the importance of such a transportation credential.

TWIC is intended to improve identity management for all transportation workers, ensuring that only authorized personnel gain unescorted access to secure areas of the country's transportation system. TWIC is designed to mitigate the threat of terrorists exploiting certain physical and cyber security gaps in the transportation system.

The bill would require TSA to deliver a rulemaking on the implementation of the TWIC program. It has been over three and one half years since Congress first required such a card, and this provision sets a mandatory deadline of January 1, 2007 for rollout.

The bill that I propose also would direct the Coast Guard to expand the deployment of Interagency Operations Centers to ports throughout the United States. These centers, already operating in five cities, would bring together all port security and operations stakeholders into a single facility at major ports. This approach has proven effective at maximizing communication among Federal, State, and local entities charged with securing the ports.

In addition, the provision would require greater standards and requirements for cargo screening equipment, and call for additional data to be incorporated into the system used to target cargo and containers for searches.

While TWIC, Interagency Operation Centers, and equipment standards will help improve security on our shores, we must be cognizant of the fact that maritime security begins in foreign ports. We must cast our security net as far back into the inbound international supply chain as possible.

Two programs that were authorized by the Commerce Committee in MTSA address the need to pre-screen cargo bound for the United States--the Container Security Initiative CSI, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, (C-TPAT).

CSI is a program in which U.S. inspectors are deployed to foreign nations to assist their foreign counterparts in the pre-screening of U.S.-bound cargo containers. C-TPAT is a voluntary supply chain security program that allows companies to seek certification from the Federal Government that such companies have taken sufficient steps to ensure that their supply chains are secure in exchange for expedited cargo clearance benefits at U.S. ports.

The bill that I introduce with my colleagues would require that basic program elements and standards be developed by DHS in order to provide CSI and C-TPAT participants a baseline understanding of the security standards expected of them.

Maritime security is not the only improvement that we must make--the unfortunate attacks on passenger trains in Madrid and the subways in London underscored weaknesses in rail transportation that our bill would seek to address. To improve rail security, our bill would require TSA to conduct railroad threat assessments and to prioritize recommendations. In addition, the legislation would create a rail security research and development program to encourage deployment of rail car tracking equipment for shipment of hazardous materials, and require threat mitigation plans when specific threat information exists. The bill also would authorize further studies of necessary improvements to passenger rail screening, in an effort to increase security in this mode of public transportation.

Our mass transit systems have pressing security needs, upon which our' colleagues on the Banking Committee are focused; as a result, transit security improvements are incorporated into our bipartisan bill. It is unfortunate that many transit agencies in the U.S. still lack sufficient resources to fulfill the post-9/11 recommendations of the Federal Transit Administration's security assessment. These needs are all the more pressing in light of recent DHS recommendations for U.S. mass transit systems to remain alert against the possibility of terrorist attacks. In response to this situation, our bill would create a needs-based grant program to identify and address risks and vulnerabilities within transit systems across the country. The bill would authorize $3.5 billion in funding over the next 3 years to transit agencies to invest in projects designed to resist and deter terrorist attacks, including: surveillance technologies; tunnel protection; chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection systems; perimeter protection; and a variety of other security improvements. The bill also would codify the role of an Information Sharing Analysis Center, which would provide security information to transit systems and ensure better communication among federal, state, local, and private sector entities.

To improve security, we must have clear objectives and methods to reach those goals. With limited resources, it is important to pinpoint risks and vulnerabilities that exist within our transportation systems, and address them accordingly. By combining provisions approved unanimously by the Commerce and Banking Committees, respectively, this bipartisan bill would make significant targeted improvements to the framework now in place to secure the Nation's port, rail, and transit environments.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Cape Wind Facility in Nantucket Sound

Mr. President, I am here to discuss the provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 and the provision which allows the State of Massachusetts to have a say in the siting of a 24-square- mile, 130-wind turbine energy facility.

I have a chart I want to use and describe.

First, let me say why the Senator from Alaska is involved in this issue. What I am trying to say is that this is a tremendous precedent.

We have a series of areas of various States where there is a gap in State jurisdiction and where Federal waters are adjacent to and sometimes almost surrounding State waters. That is particularly true in my State. With the Cook Inlet on either side of Kalgin Island, there are gaps of Federal waters surrounded by the mainland of Alaska going down the inlet.

The Minerals Management Service tells us there are roughly 2.5 million acres of Federal waters going down that inlet that could be used for projects such as I am going to discuss today.

A similar situation exists with Chandeleur Island, LA; the Channel Islands in California; the Farallon Islands in California; the Hawaiian Islands in many instances; and in Puerto Rico.

What I am here to talk about is the precedent that would be established by locating this facility in Nantucket Sound, less than 2 miles beyond the State of Massachusetts' jurisdiction.

If we look at this chart, you can see very clearly the area with the darkest color on the chart, which is the proposed site of this power facility. It is 9 miles from one part of Massachusetts, 13.8 miles from the other side, and 6 miles from the other direction.

When you look at the situation, we realize the State has jurisdiction over at least 3 miles in that area.

This is very close to the area of Massachusetts where people have a right to be concerned over this project. Before the Federal Government claimed ownership of this area, there was a judicial dispute over which government had jurisdiction over it. I am informed that the State of Massachusetts had established a marine park in this area. As a matter of fact, it was listed as part of a proposed marine sanctuary, even in the Federal listings. It is now the proposed site for the largest and most expansive offshore wind energy project ever undertaken in the world.

This facility would include turbines that stand 417 feet tall.

This is a chart that describes it. Those windmills would be 417 feet tall, taller than the Statue of Liberty. The one little point at the bottom shows a 30-foot sailboat. You can see the size of it. People sail their boats that size on Nantucket Bay, and the Great Point Lighthouse is supposed to keep sailors and mariners warned about the area. It is only 73 feet tall.

When you look this area, it is 24 miles across, more than half the size of Boston Harbor itself. It is going to be the site of this enormous facility.

As I said, it is larger than any similar kind of wind energy project in the world.

It is a very small area of Federal jurisdiction, completely surrounded by the mainland and islands of Massachusetts.

Some in the media have insinuated that by including this provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, I am doing it as an old friend to Senator Ted Kennedy. He is an old friend. It is true that Senator Kennedy and the Governor of Massachusetts support the provision in the Coast Guard bill, but this is my amendment. They have agreed with me. I didn't seek their agreement. It is not an issue based on friendship or on past favors or future favors. It is strictly a provision based upon my long-held belief that States should have the final say on projects which will directly impact their lands, resources, and constituents.

Some in the press have claimed this provision is embedded in ``obscure legislation to be passed in the dead of the night.'' We hear this all the time. But the Coast Guard authorization bill is hardly obscure legislation, and there is nothing secretive about this bill.

The version of this bill that passed the House of Representatives included a provision related to offshore wind farms. It was in the House-passed bill to start with. The House and the Senate, in a bicameral, bipartisan group of Members of a conference committee, discussed and negotiated language to provide the State of Massachusetts a greater voice in the siting of this windmill farm in Nantucket Sound.

This bicameral, bipartisan group also negotiated language requiring the Coast Guard to assess the potential navigational impacts of the proposed offshore powerplant.

This is the normal legislative process for passing legislation of this type through the Congress.

Again, let me point out this chart. I don't live in this area, but I have studied it very well. This is the path the ferries take coming out of these areas and going through this sound, and it is the path which the commercial traffic, steamships, and cargo ships use going into that port.

As a consequence of this location, this line demonstrates the State's jurisdiction and how close it is to the State's jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the area that is has been lined shows the previous plan which would have gone partially into the State's jurisdiction. The project was amended, so it does not touch the State waters or State jurisdiction areas at all.

It is this area of solid brown on this chart.

By the way, this is the very shallow portion of this area. There is no question about it. Nantucket Island is out here. But there are equally shallow portions outside of the sound that could have been used. But, of course, it is deeper going in there, and that access to this interior part of this sound I think is strictly a financial decision.

At the heart of the debate on the issue is States' rights. The fact is this project will be located entirely in the sound--in this small doughnut hole of the Federal water surrounded by islands and mainland of the State of Massachusetts.

The debate over this project is similar to the fights those of us in Alaska have been engaged in for decades. Our State lands are surrounded by Federal lands, and we often don't have any decision regarding the development of our resources or projects which will be located in our State.

This is one of those situations where Congress ought to listen to the Governor. They ought to listen to the senior Senator, in my opinion.

Those in Massachusetts have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of this wind farm and what its impact will be on maritime navigation, aviation, and radar installations critical to our homeland security.

This proposed site is an area already known for its treacherous flight conditions, and this facility could make those conditions much worse. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, this facility will be located in the flight path of thousands

of small planes. Both the Barnstable and Nantucket Airport Commissions are opposed to the construction of this facility, as are the major ferry lines that operate in Nantucket Sound.

As the chart I have described shows, ferry routes pass within a mile of the proposed location for this project on two sides. The 24-square- mile footprint for this facility is nearly half the size of Boston Harbor, a 471-foot wind farm.

Again, those windmills are larger than this building. Those windmills are larger than the Capitol.

You have to get the specter of this size being built in the center of this sound. It is a 24-square-mile footprint for this facility. As I have said, it is half the size of Boston Harbor and has shipping and ferry channels bordering on three sides.

There is not a single local fishing group from Massachusetts that supports this project, I am informed. It would effectively close a 24- mile-square-mile footprint of many kinds of fishing that has taken place in this sound for generations. Horseshoe Shoal, where the facility will be built, is one of the most productive fishing grounds in the area. That means this area produces offspring. This is where the fish spawn.

The impact of the shoal will be significant. The piling for each one of these windmills--there are 130 of them--are 16 feet in diameter and will be bored down into the shoal to a depth of about 80 feet. This productive area will be littered with 130 drilled holes. Each piling will occupy 2 acres of productive fishing ground. Navigating in and around 130 turbines will make fishing and fishing reproduction in this area nearly impossible.

In addition, these turbines will make Coast Guard search and rescue missions much more difficult in this area, already known for severe weather and sea conditions in parts of the year.

Those in Massachusetts raise another important point. Developing a wind farm of this size and scale offshore has never been done before, let alone in an environment as extreme as the waters of the North Atlantic.

To put this challenge in perspective, it helps to compare the Massachusetts project to the wind farm currently operating in Palm Springs, CA. I know a little bit about this. I have gone into that town several times by air. That facility stands 150 feet at the tallest point. The blades are half the length of a football field, but they are one-third of this size. Even on dry land and a relatively calm desert climate, the Palm Springs wind farm has been plagued by serious maintenance complications. Many of the turbines require constant maintenance and repair.

Put that in the Massachusetts Sound. They require maintenance and repair constantly. This Massachusetts project would require maintenance and repair to take place in icy waters of Nantucket Sound. The size of the windmills for this facility would dwarf the existing land-based wind projects. The windmills in Nantucket Sound would stand nearly three times as tall as those in Palm Springs, with wind blades over a football field in length. Just the blade is a football field in length.

Now, given the legitimate issues raised by the people of Massachusetts and their representative, I believe it is only fair to allow the State to have an equal voice in the debate over the siting of this project. Nantucket Sound, as I have said, is not the only place where a project of this kind can be built. In Europe, deepwater wind energy technologies are currently being developed as far out as 15 miles in 138 feet of water. Placing wind energy facilities further from their shore reduces their impact on maritime navigation.

If this 24-square-mile wind farm is built further away from shore, there would be a number of benefits. It would be removed from boating, fishing, ferrying, shipping channels, reducing the risk of collision and reducing the potential impact on the navigation which we have asked the Coast Guard to look into.

I do support America's use of alternative energy sources, including wind farms and wind power. I have supported wind projects in the past during my time as chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Our committee appropriated over $105 million for wind projects in fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006. There was even one in my State around Kotzebue.

It is the right of a State to determine if this type of project is consistent with its efforts to protect its resources. I believe Congress should defer to the judgment of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Governor of Massachusetts, and the people of Massachusetts on this matter. States should have a say in the activities taking place in the waters adjacent to their shores. This location, in particular, deserves special consideration due to the geographic peculiarities of the region.

California blocked oil platforms, Oregon and Washington blocked them before they were even built.

We now have a dispute before the Congress over a potential development of gas resources 170 miles off the State of Florida. This is 3 miles. This is within a sound that is one of the--I have only been there two or three times, but it is a place if you ever go to it you would not forget. It is not a place that deserves to have this impact. The residents of Massachusetts will have to live with the impact of this project. They must have a greater role in determining the fate of this treasured area.

This bill, H.R. 889, as agreed to by the conference committee, rightly awards the State of Massachusetts this greater authority in the decisions regarding this project. So I am here today to urge the House and the Senate to listen to the people of Massachusetts and particularly to listen to their senior Senator.

I am pleased to yield whatever time I have remaining. I think I have only another 10 minutes or so. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I think we have 30 minutes on this side and 30 minutes on that side, is that correct?

Is there time on the Democratic side for the Senator from Massachusetts?

We will work that out.

I talked too long.

That is right.

I believe the Senator is correct.

As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, I am keenly aware that these are important modularity programs for our Nation's Army.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his observations on the realities of the appropriations process. Candidly, there were more programs of need for the Army than there were resources available to the committee. I am committed to working with conferees to this bill in conference to try to address these two particular programs.

Madam President, today Senator Inouye and I introduce the Communications Act of 2006. Just over a month ago, the Senate Commerce Committee concluded a series of 15 hearings on the state of our Nation's communications laws. We looked at what changes in the law would be required to spur innovation, encourage competition, and provide better service at a lower price for consumers. Senator Inouye and I, and the members of our committee heard from dozens of witnesses and still more who have offered comments and suggested language. Our staffs met with literally hundreds of people representing every point of view.

The measure we introduce today is a working draft intended to stimulate discussion and is open for comments and suggestions for change. It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, consumer groups and local government. Both Senator Inouye and I may propose additional changes based on comments offered by our members or interested parties. We will hold two hearings to take testimony on the draft bill and will listen to proposed changes. It is our hope that through a process of collaboration, we can draft a bill that represents a bipartisan consensus.

The bill includes elements from a number of bills introduced by members of our committee from both sides of the aisle. The Call Home Act that Senator Inouye and I introduced last week would allow the FCC to take any action short of price regulation to reduce rates for members of our Armed Forces who call home. The measure includes thirteen cosponsors from our committee and another twenty-five cosponsors from the Senate at large. The Call Home Act has been endorsed by twenty-five military and veterans organizations.

The overarching theme of the bill we introduce today is deployment of broadband nationwide. Today the United States is less than 16th in adoption of broadband worldwide. We are not only behind most of the developed world, we even lag behind some of the less developed parts of the globe. To address this broadband gap, the bill we introduce today will allow local governments to offer their own broadband service, so long as they do not compete unfairly with the private sector. The provision is based largely on Senator McCain's and Lautenberg's bill, S. 1294, cosponsored by Senator Kerry, but includes elements to protect the private sector from unfair government competition from Senator Ensign's bill, S. 1504 cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Senator McCain was also very helpful in crafting the interoperability section of the bill. After Hurricane Katrina and later Wilma and Rita, the committee held a series of hearings on problems communications companies had in restoring service and the difficulties first responders had in talking to one another even when service had been fully restored. During those difficult times, Senators Lott and Vitter played an important role in highlighting the importance of interoperability in times of crisis. As part of the reconciliation bill adopted last December, this committee addressed the interoperability problem by dedicating $1 billion to interoperability programs. However, because of the Byrd rule, it was not possible to provide guidance on how the money should be spent. The interoperability bill we introduce today adopts many of the recommendations offered by a variety of groups from the 911 Commission to the recent White House report. It embraces key concepts such as Planning and interoperable equipment grants which have been discussed with the Department of Homeland Security and various public safety groups.

The bill will also crate prepositioned technology caches in every State in the Union with some redundant regional caches for national emergencies--an idea offered by Senator Inouye and his staff. These caches will include equipment like satellite telephones that work even when towers and power lines have been destroyed.

Senator Kerry has also been in involved in the interoperability discussion, and I believe he will have suggestions as we move forward on how to build redundancy into our communications system.

One of the centerpieces of the legislation is video franchising reform. The bill is based largely on legislation introduced by Senator Ensign, S. 1504, cosponsored by Senators McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter. Senators Smith and Rockefeller introduced a similar measure. Consistent with the Inouye/Burns principles, the measure retains local franchise involvement, but is based off of the Alaska model which uses expedited procedures, consistent with the shot clock principles in the Inouye/Burns principles.

By using a standard application, but preserving the cities' right to manage their own rights of way and providing the revenues needed to operate their institutional networks as well as their PEG channels, the bill seeks to balance the needs of those who want to deploy broadband networks for video services and the desires of cities to continue the services they offer today. We also sought to address the needs of the existing cable companies by offering them the same terms as new entrants immediately upon approval of the competitor's franchise application. Additionally, a cable company can avail itself of the new streamlined rules after its current franchise agreement expires.

Another issue addressed in the draft bill is access to video content. While satellite companies are barred from hoarding exclusive sports programming, the so-called terrestrial loophole does not impose the same mandate on cable companies. As a result, through acquisition of regional sports networks by cable operators, competition with satellite providers is stymied. The Sports Freedom Act included in this bill is patterned after a provision in the Ensign bill cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Also critical to providing compelling content is the broadcast flag. Broadcasters are reluctant to offer their best programming over the air for fear it could be stolen and distributed worldwide over the Internet with no regard to copyright protection. This has been a critical issue for Senator Inouye on the video side and for Senator Frist on the audio side. Senators Smith and Boxer took on this issue and developed a draft bill which became the basis for the legislation we introduce today. It attempted to strike a balance between the needs of broadcasters and the desires of the consumer electronic industry not to have the Federal Government pick technology winners and losers. While interested parties may have suggestions for improving the bill, we believe it is a good first step in addressing their concerns. I commend Senators Smith and Boxer for their hard work on this issue.

The measure includes a white space provision modeled after S. 2327, the Allen-Kerry WIN Act supported by Senators Sununu, Dorgan, and Boxer. It adds some protections the broadcasters requested to prevent harmful interference by requiring any new device to be tested in an FCC certified lab before deployment. The concept of using vacant TV channels for broadband deployment through Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and other technologies is strongly endorsed by consumer groups and the technology community. Also, each can play an important role in bringing broadband to rural America.

The legislation includes guidance on the DTV transition that was not possible in the reconciliation bill because of the Byrd rule. Much of the language we included is based on a provision Senator Inouye worked on to Address consumer education issues. It also includes an international coordination element requested by Senator Hutchison to address interference on the US-Mexico border that will also

benefit other border states, such as Alaska, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and Maine. In addition, we have included S. 900, Senator McCain's Television Information Enhancement for the visually impaired act which Senator Inouye and I cosponsored, along with Senator Smith. That bill authorizes an existing FCC rule requiring TV stations to offer some video description of television shows so blind listeners will be able to follow the action. The existing rule was struck down by the courts on the grounds that the FCC lacked authority for such a rule. Today we provide them the authority they need. As the son of a father who was blind for a period of time, this is an issue of personal interest to me.

Last, but most important to me is universal service reform. Our measure is based on a series of bills. The contribution mechanism we adopted is based on S. 2256, the Burns USF bill and S. 1583, the Smith- Dorgan measure which was also cosponsored by Senator Pryor. It allows the FCC to adopt a contribution mechanism based on revenues, numbers, or connections. Such a step is needed to stabilize this important program. it also includes Senator Smith's concept of a separate broadband fund to address the needs of unserved areas.

We have included S. 241, the Snowe-Rockefeller ADA exemption after failing in our efforts to work out this issue with the Administration. While the Burns and Smith-Dorgan-Pryor bills were the basis for our USF title, we also used important concepts from H.R. 5072, the Terry- Boucher bill, and we applaud them for their leadership in the House and thank them for their contribution to this effort. Lastly, we have included S. 2378, the Inouye measure that will improve the e-rate program for Native Americans. Senators McCain, Dorgan, and I joined in cosponsoring that bill.

This bill includes provisions throughout that will benefit consumers. It encourages competition and cost savings in the video market. It addresses some critical needs in rural America. And, it encourages deployment of broadband so that our Nation can remain competitive.

This is a comprehensive bill, as indicated by my comments, that we have researched. The bill is introduced by every Member of the Senate. We are attempting to collate them so we can have one communications act for this year. This will be the Communications Act of 2006.

I urge the Senate to review it. We look forward to having their comments.

Madam President, today Senator Inouye and I introduce the Communications Act of 2006. Just over a month ago, the Senate Commerce Committee concluded a series of 15 hearings on the state of our Nation's communications laws. We looked at what changes in the law would be required to spur innovation, encourage competition, and provide better service at a lower price for consumers. Senator Inouye and I, and the members of our committee heard from dozens of witnesses and still more who have offered comments and suggested language. Our staffs met with literally hundreds of people representing every point of view.

The measure we introduce today is a working draft intended to stimulate discussion and is open for comments and suggestions for change. It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, consumer groups and local government. Both Senator Inouye and I may propose additional changes based on comments offered by our members or interested parties. We will hold two hearings to take testimony on the draft bill and will listen to proposed changes. It is our hope that through a process of collaboration, we can draft a bill that represents a bipartisan consensus.

The bill includes elements from a number of bills introduced by members of our committee from both sides of the aisle. The Call Home Act that Senator Inouye and I introduced last week would allow the FCC to take any action short of price regulation to reduce rates for members of our Armed Forces who call home. The measure includes thirteen cosponsors from our committee and another twenty-five cosponsors from the Senate at large. The Call Home Act has been endorsed by twenty-five military and veterans organizations.

The overarching theme of the bill we introduce today is deployment of broadband nationwide. Today the United States is less than 16th in adoption of broadband worldwide. We are not only behind most of the developed world, we even lag behind some of the less developed parts of the globe. To address this broadband gap, the bill we introduce today will allow local governments to offer their own broadband service, so long as they do not compete unfairly with the private sector. The provision is based largely on Senator McCain's and Lautenberg's bill, S. 1294, cosponsored by Senator Kerry, but includes elements to protect the private sector from unfair government competition from Senator Ensign's bill, S. 1504 cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Senator McCain was also very helpful in crafting the interoperability section of the bill. After Hurricane Katrina and later Wilma and Rita, the committee held a series of hearings on problems communications companies had in restoring service and the difficulties first responders had in talking to one another even when service had been fully restored. During those difficult times, Senators Lott and Vitter played an important role in highlighting the importance of interoperability in times of crisis. As part of the reconciliation bill adopted last December, this committee addressed the interoperability problem by dedicating $1 billion to interoperability programs. However, because of the Byrd rule, it was not possible to provide guidance on how the money should be spent. The interoperability bill we introduce today adopts many of the recommendations offered by a variety of groups from the 911 Commission to the recent White House report. It embraces key concepts such as Planning and interoperable equipment grants which have been discussed with the Department of Homeland Security and various public safety groups.

The bill will also crate prepositioned technology caches in every State in the Union with some redundant regional caches for national emergencies--an idea offered by Senator Inouye and his staff. These caches will include equipment like satellite telephones that work even when towers and power lines have been destroyed.

Senator Kerry has also been in involved in the interoperability discussion, and I believe he will have suggestions as we move forward on how to build redundancy into our communications system.

One of the centerpieces of the legislation is video franchising reform. The bill is based largely on legislation introduced by Senator Ensign, S. 1504, cosponsored by Senators McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter. Senators Smith and Rockefeller introduced a similar measure. Consistent with the Inouye/Burns principles, the measure retains local franchise involvement, but is based off of the Alaska model which uses expedited procedures, consistent with the shot clock principles in the Inouye/Burns principles.

By using a standard application, but preserving the cities' right to manage their own rights of way and providing the revenues needed to operate their institutional networks as well as their PEG channels, the bill seeks to balance the needs of those who want to deploy broadband networks for video services and the desires of cities to continue the services they offer today. We also sought to address the needs of the existing cable companies by offering them the same terms as new entrants immediately upon approval of the competitor's franchise application. Additionally, a cable company can avail itself of the new streamlined rules after its current franchise agreement expires.

Another issue addressed in the draft bill is access to video content. While satellite companies are barred from hoarding exclusive sports programming, the so-called terrestrial loophole does not impose the same mandate on cable companies. As a result, through acquisition of regional sports networks by cable operators, competition with satellite providers is stymied. The Sports Freedom Act included in this bill is patterned after a provision in the Ensign bill cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Also critical to providing compelling content is the broadcast flag. Broadcasters are reluctant to offer their best programming over the air for fear it could be stolen and distributed worldwide over the Internet with no regard to copyright protection. This has been a critical issue for Senator Inouye on the video side and for Senator Frist on the audio side. Senators Smith and Boxer took on this issue and developed a draft bill which became the basis for the legislation we introduce today. It attempted to strike a balance between the needs of broadcasters and the desires of the consumer electronic industry not to have the Federal Government pick technology winners and losers. While interested parties may have suggestions for improving the bill, we believe it is a good first step in addressing their concerns. I commend Senators Smith and Boxer for their hard work on this issue.

The measure includes a white space provision modeled after S. 2327, the Allen-Kerry WIN Act supported by Senators Sununu, Dorgan, and Boxer. It adds some protections the broadcasters requested to prevent harmful interference by requiring any new device to be tested in an FCC certified lab before deployment. The concept of using vacant TV channels for broadband deployment through Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and other technologies is strongly endorsed by consumer groups and the technology community. Also, each can play an important role in bringing broadband to rural America.

The legislation includes guidance on the DTV transition that was not possible in the reconciliation bill because of the Byrd rule. Much of the language we included is based on a provision Senator Inouye worked on to Address consumer education issues. It also includes an international coordination element requested by Senator Hutchison to address interference on the US-Mexico border that will also

benefit other border states, such as Alaska, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and Maine. In addition, we have included S. 900, Senator McCain's Television Information Enhancement for the visually impaired act which Senator Inouye and I cosponsored, along with Senator Smith. That bill authorizes an existing FCC rule requiring TV stations to offer some video description of television shows so blind listeners will be able to follow the action. The existing rule was struck down by the courts on the grounds that the FCC lacked authority for such a rule. Today we provide them the authority they need. As the son of a father who was blind for a period of time, this is an issue of personal interest to me.

Last, but most important to me is universal service reform. Our measure is based on a series of bills. The contribution mechanism we adopted is based on S. 2256, the Burns USF bill and S. 1583, the Smith- Dorgan measure which was also cosponsored by Senator Pryor. It allows the FCC to adopt a contribution mechanism based on revenues, numbers, or connections. Such a step is needed to stabilize this important program. it also includes Senator Smith's concept of a separate broadband fund to address the needs of unserved areas.

We have included S. 241, the Snowe-Rockefeller ADA exemption after failing in our efforts to work out this issue with the Administration. While the Burns and Smith-Dorgan-Pryor bills were the basis for our USF title, we also used important concepts from H.R. 5072, the Terry- Boucher bill, and we applaud them for their leadership in the House and thank them for their contribution to this effort. Lastly, we have included S. 2378, the Inouye measure that will improve the e-rate program for Native Americans. Senators McCain, Dorgan, and I joined in cosponsoring that bill.

This bill includes provisions throughout that will benefit consumers. It encourages competition and cost savings in the video market. It addresses some critical needs in rural America. And, it encourages deployment of broadband so that our Nation can remain competitive.

This is a comprehensive bill, as indicated by my comments, that we have researched. The bill is introduced by every Member of the Senate. We are attempting to collate them so we can have one communications act for this year. This will be the Communications Act of 2006.

I urge the Senate to review it. We look forward to having their comments.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wonder if the Senator from Oregon would agree, I have heard the comment that the normal process is for a Senator to offer an amendment and to have an opportunity to get a guarantee of a vote. I am sure, would the Senator agree, that the Senator's amendment is subject to an amendment?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. President, I have been trying for 25 years to get a vote on ANWR. I fully intend to offer ANWR as an amendment in the second degree to the Senator's amendment, and then I want to help him get a vote. I want to help him get a vote right now. That is exactly what I have been waiting to do for 25 years.

So I serve notice, I will offer an amendment in the second degree, the ANWR bill. I do hope we will vote on it today.

Reserving the right to object, will that bar my offering of my amendment on ANWR? Is the amendment still subject to an amendment in the second degree?

Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, this does not bar an amendment in the second degree; is that correct?

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I repeat my parliamentary inquiry. Does the Senator's request----

Will the Senator yield?

I am the senior member of the Appropriations Committee and former chairman, and I will be happy to work with you to arrange consideration of ANWR at any time.

Mr. President, the Call Home Act of 2006 would require the Federal Communications Commission to take such actions as may be necessary to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, including the waiver of government fees, assessments, or other costs.

In seeking to reduce phone rates, the legislation would require the FCC to evaluate and analyze the costs of calls to and from official duty stations including vessels whether in port or under way; evaluate methods of reducing rates including deployment of new technology such as Voice over Internet protocol, VOIP, or other Internet protocol technology; encourage phone companies to adopt flexible billing procedures and policies call to and from Armed Forces personnel; and seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce international surcharges on phone calls.

The legislation would, however, prohibit the FCC from regulating rates in order to carry out the Call Home Act's requirements.

The Call Home Act of 2006 would replace similar legislation from 1992 that limited the FCC's efforts to reduce rates to specific countries. The Call Home Act would expand the FCC's efforts to benefit troops wherever they are deployed in support of the global war on terrorism.

We have received a letter of support from the Military Coalition, which represents 36 military and veterans groups. We have also received letters of support from individual members of that coalition and others urging Congress to enact this legislation: Veterans of Foreign Wars; Association of the United States Army; Enlisted Association of the National Guard; Military Officers Association of America; American Legion; Naval Reserve Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives of America; and Air Force Sergeants Association.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars' letter of support says that calls home are ``lifeline'' for the brave men and women stationed abroad.

I urge you to vote for this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Call Home Act of 2006 would require the Federal Communications Commission to take such actions as may be necessary to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, including the waiver of government fees, assessments, or other costs.

In seeking to reduce phone rates, the legislation would require the FCC to evaluate and analyze the costs of calls to and from official duty stations including vessels whether in port or under way; evaluate methods of reducing rates including deployment of new technology such as Voice over Internet protocol, VOIP, or other Internet protocol technology; encourage phone companies to adopt flexible billing procedures and policies call to and from Armed Forces personnel; and seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce international surcharges on phone calls.

The legislation would, however, prohibit the FCC from regulating rates in order to carry out the Call Home Act's requirements.

The Call Home Act of 2006 would replace similar legislation from 1992 that limited the FCC's efforts to reduce rates to specific countries. The Call Home Act would expand the FCC's efforts to benefit troops wherever they are deployed in support of the global war on terrorism.

We have received a letter of support from the Military Coalition, which represents 36 military and veterans groups. We have also received letters of support from individual members of that coalition and others urging Congress to enact this legislation: Veterans of Foreign Wars; Association of the United States Army; Enlisted Association of the National Guard; Military Officers Association of America; American Legion; Naval Reserve Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives of America; and Air Force Sergeants Association.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars' letter of support says that calls home are ``lifeline'' for the brave men and women stationed abroad.

I urge you to vote for this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I asked Senator Leahy to take my place in the chair because I want to show that a Republican agrees with him, in part. I do support the statements made by the Senator from Vermont concerning the derogatory statements that may have been made concerning any racial connections with this bill.

However, I cannot support cloture on the bill because it still contains the provisions with regard to felons. The amendment we tried to vote on the other day, I am informed, is probably not possible to consider if we vote cloture on this bill at this time. So I regret that I cannot support cloture. I stated that I would vote for cloture on the bill as it came from the Judiciary Committee. Under the circumstances, once it was discovered, with the provisions with regard to prior convictions for felonies, I supported that amendment the other day by voting not to table it. I believe that amendment should be considered before we vote cloture on this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused from voting until the first vote that occurs on April 24.