Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to ask a request of the joint leadership. Last year, I introduced S. 1977 to repeal a provision of the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. My bill was designed to address the concerns on the west coast about the impact of high energy prices on their economies, their businesses, and their consumers.

Upon its introduction, S. 1977 was immediately met with press releases condemning it. I believe the purpose of my legislation was deliberately misinterpreted. By repealing this provision, this bill would ensure that the Cherry Point refinery in the State of Washington could maintain its current capacity.

The Cherry Point refinery processes 225,000 barrels of crude oil per day. About 60 percent of the crude oil processed at the refinery comes from my State of Alaska, and 70 percent of its refined product is consumed by businesses, vehicles, and industries located in Washington State.

S. 1977 deals solely with the construction or expansion of marine terminals and docks in Puget Sound specifically at Cherry Point. It has nothing to do with the number or size of tankers in Puget Sound. The Coast Guard controls that through regulation. The existing provision of law under consideration limits the expansion of docks which is vital to the area's economy. If this provision is enforced, it will eventually reduce crude oil delivery at the Cherry Point refinery by about 10 percent, reducing fuel capacity for the entire region by about 704,000 gallons per day of refined product.

My intention on introducing this legislation was to ensure stable supplies of fuel for the Pacific Northwest at the existing capacity. It would not have increased capacity at all.

Some have litigated this issue in the press, politicized this issue, and leveraged it for personal political publicity. Some Washingtonians have appealed to me because they don't like to see a conflict between our State and their State. They contacted me privately and sought to work this out.

In particular, one letter convinced me that despite my good intentions, the bill may not be the best policy for the people of Washington right now. But they contacted me.

Because of my private consultation with the author of the letter, which I do appreciate very much, I have come to the floor to ask that the joint leadership institute procedures to bring about the permanent postponement of this legislation and indicate we will never take it up.

It is my understanding that this is the only procedure available as it is not possible for me to ask to withdraw it. I have never, in my 38 years in the Senate, asked to pull legislation or have any bill I introduced be permanently postponed. But that is my intention now.

For years, I have fought for Alaska's right to determine our State's future and to develop our own energy resources, particularly in the Alaska Coastal Plain. I defer to this policy now, and I believe the people of Washington will have to make this decision. It is a decision that will have to be made. But based on the private conversations and the letter I mentioned, I yield to the concerns of Washingtonians on this legislation. I still believe S. 1977 is the right policy, but I respect the rights of those living in Washington State to make the decision as to when that policy should be pursued. Consistent with my personal philosophy, again I ask that the leadership find a way to permanently postpone consideration of S. 1977.

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

Mr. President, our country needs additional funding for LIHEAP. Temperatures in rural Alaska have reached 62 below zero. These temperatures have frozen heating systems and water and sewer lines in many of our villages. Alaskans are struggling this winter and paying over $5 per gallon to heat their homes. In fact, the mayor of a North Slope community told me that at one point, a village paid $8 per gallon.

While the home heating picture is not as bleak in other parts of our country, all Americans are feeling the effects of high energy prices.

In December, I tried to address this situation by including emergency LIHEAP funding in the Defense Appropriations Bill. Our bill created a new revenue stream by authorizing oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain of ANWR--and used this revenue to provide funding for several emergencies. Our bill included $2 billion for LIHEAP and funding for the hurricane victims, first responders, and farmers.

The ANWR provision would have created a long-term, dedicated funding stream for home energy assistance.

Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle successfully filibustered consideration of this package under the guise of a Rule XXVIII violation. They then noted to remove the ANWR provision and the funds it provided from the bill, including emergency funding for

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend Kenneth Mead's service as inspector general of the Department of Transportation. I am joined by Commerce Committee Cochairman Senator Inouye and committee members Senators Burns, McCain, Rockefeller, Lott, Lautenberg, Sununu, Pryor, and Bill Nelson.

On February 11, 2006, Mr. Mead announced his retirement as the inspector general of the Department of

Transportation after nearly 9 years of service in that position. In those 9 years of service, Mr. Mead and his staff conducted countless investigations in an independent, impartial, and professional manner regarding numerous issues affecting the Department.

Mr. Mead appeared before the committee as a witness on several occasions throughout his tenure, and the committee always found that he provided independent, thorough, and relevant commentary and recommendations concerning a wide range of Federal transportation policies and programs. His contributions to transportation safety are greatly appreciated by the current and former members of the committee.

On behalf of the Commerce Committee, I ask that the Senate recognize and commend Kenneth M. Mead for his more than 8 years of exemplary service to the Nation as the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, and we express our deep appreciation and gratitude for his long and outstanding service.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter from the United States Trade Representative be entered into the Record. It serves as notification to Congress that the President intends to initiate negotiations for a free trade agreement, FTA, with the Republic of Korea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached Wall Street Journal article, ``Iraq's Future, Our Past,'' be printed into the Record. This article was written by Mr. Rastislav Kacer, Mr. Petr Kolar, Mr. Janusz Reiter and Mr. Andras Simonyi, respectively, the Slovak, Czech, Polish and Hungarian Ambassadors to the United States.

I applaud the Ambassadors' leadership and the work of the Visegrod Group, a partnership of their four countries. Emerging out of a shared history of dictatorship, these Central European countries strive for cooperative and democratic development. They deeply understand the challenges of an emerging democracy but champion its ultimate rewards. Their vision and experience are strong examples for the country of Iraq and they stand ready to lend a helping hand.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. James M. Philpott, Assistant Deputy Chief of

Staff for Resource Management, U.S. Army Pacific, who, in early 2006, will retire from a distinguished career spanning 35 years of exemplary service to America.

Mr. Philpott began his Federal career as a Comptroller Management Intern with the U.S. Army Pacific in 1971. He has served with Army organizations in Hawaii, Okinawa, mainland Japan, Korea, and Fort Huachuca, AZ. Mr. Philpott also spent 2 years with the U.S. Department of Energy where he directed the Comptroller's independent financial management review and analysis function.

During his more than 30 years involved in Army resource management, Mr. Philpott was a highly respected leader and expert on the Army budget and a wide range of related issues concerning the Asia-Pacific region. He played a critical role in the formulation, approval, and execution of U.S. Army Pacific budgets that produced a much-needed strengthening of America's defense posture and enabled our military to fulfill its many demanding commitments within the Pacific area of responsibility.

Mr. Philpott developed and led a diverse staff of analysts. Over the years, he mentored and guided a generation of Army budget and management analysts. Mr. Philpott was the primary leader in tracking and resolving budget and realignment matters involving U.S. Army Pacific. He meticulously tracked numerous and complex actions affecting the funding and manpower available to the command. Mr. Philpott has been a loyal and trustworthy adviser to nine commanding generals of U.S. Army Pacific, spanning 19 years. His expertise of Pacific resource management matters is unparalleled.

Mr. Philpott produced substantial top-quality analysis on complex economic, fiscal, and budget topics for commanders of U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific and other senior leaders. He also improved support for these leaders by initiating important resource management reforms that saved staff time and improved the quality of decisionmaking data.

For his extraordinary achievements, Mr. Philpott received the Meritorious Service Award three times. He was awarded the Nick Hoge Award for Professional Development, and Superior Civilian Service Award and Commander's Award two times. He earned the deep respect of leaders throughout the U.S. Army Pacific, Department of the Army, and with Congress's defense oversight committees. These leaders benefited enormously from his exceptional knowledge and dedication. Mr. Philpott's service has substantially helped our Nation's leaders make the wisest possible allocation of its defense resources in order to ensure America's future security.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Philpott has had the resolute support of his wife Kathy and his three children. He has earned the deep gratitude of the American people. I join my staff, particularly our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Staff Director, Sid Ashworth, in wishing Mr. Philpott and his family all the best in the coming years.

Mr. President, I first want to comment about the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter. Knowing the health challenges he has faced in the past, witnessing this Senator's strenuous schedule in the last few months has been something to watch, to have the opportunity to witness his commitment to the Senate and to his role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I commend him very much for his dedication to his job and to his function as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has come through some very serious medical periods in his life, but he has distinguished himself in recent months in demonstrating his total commitment to the work of the Senate. I honor him for the job he has done in conducting these hearings.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator who serves with the chairman with great dignity on the Judiciary Committee. I cannot appear here without recognizing the serious illnesses that Senator Specter has gone through and survived and the energy he has shown despite those illnesses.

To me, there is no doubt that Judge Samuel Alito is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He has served as Assistant to the Solicitor General and as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was unanimously confirmed by this Senate to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and he has argued some 12 cases before the Supreme Court. He is well respected by our Nation's legal community. Seven of his current and former colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit testified in support of his nomination, and one of the former circuit judges who testified supporting his nomination was the former judge Jim Gibbons, who was a classmate of mine at law school and is a man whose judgment I respect very much.

Judge Alito also received a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, and our majority colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have reported his nomination to the Senate favorably on a unanimous basis.

In my some 38 years now in the Senate, I have voted to confirm 16 nominees to the Supreme Court and 2 to the position of Chief Justice. In each instance, I have followed the advice of the Judiciary Committee on these votes, and I have always voted for a nominee based upon his or her qualifications. I have not been influenced by a Justice's personal political beliefs or the party affiliation of the President who sent the nomination to the Senate.

For me, the decision to vote for Judge Alito is not a simple one. I am proud to come from a family with a long line of very strong pro- choice women, and I have reflected their judgment here in the Senate. I am from a different generation. I remember well when a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was not recognized by our law. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would be destabilizing for our country and for our Federal system. It could and probably would lead to a battle to amend the Constitution to reassure American women of their rights, their constitutional rights. Such a battle is unnecessary as long as the Justices of the Supreme Court honor the doctrine of stare decisis.

I asked Chairman Specter to give me some of the pertinent portions of the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and over the past few days I have spent much time reviewing Judge Alito's answers to the questions posed to him by members of the Judiciary Committee. Those answers reflect a deep respect for precedent and for the doctrine of stare decisis.

On the third day of his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito told the Judiciary Committee this:

Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court.

It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a

long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions .

. . and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision;

sometimes on the merits; sometimes--in Casey--based on stare

decisis.

And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is

reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for

at least two reasons.

First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the

more people tend to rely on it. Secondly, I think stare

decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in

decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the

same oath and are scholars and are conscientious. And when

they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think

it's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the

more times that happens, the more respect the decision is

entitled to.

Another portion of Judge Alito's testimony also influenced my thoughts on this vote. On the second day of the hearings, Judge Alito told the Judiciary Committee that if a case involving abortion comes before the Supreme Court while he serves on that Court:

The first question that would have to be addressed is the

question of stare decisis . . . and then, if I were to get

beyond that, if the Court were to get beyond the issue of

stare decisis, then I would have to go through the whole

judicial decision-making process before reaching a

conclusion.

This quote reflects the process Judge Alito stated he will follow to evaluate the cases that come before him if he serves on the Supreme Court. I understand his comments to mean he will seek consensus among his colleagues on the Supreme Court regarding the issues involving stare decisis. While serving on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito ruled on three cases related to abortion. In each of these cases, he demonstrated a respect for and a deference to established rules of law. He did what he believed the law required; he did not seek to enact a personal political agenda. In fact, he told Senator Sessions during the confirmation hearings, in answer to a question of Senator Sessions:

If I had been out to implement some sort of agenda to

uphold any abortion regulation that came along, then I would

not have voted the way I did in that Elizabeth Blackwell

case.

Based on his past rulings and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I believe Judge Alito would respect stare decisis on the issue of Roe v. Wade or on any issue that comes before the Court where that should be respected. And as I vote to confirm his nomination, I do so on the assumption that Judge Alito will uphold this commitment, which he stated on the record, to stare decisis, a process he outlined for reviewing cases involving stare decisis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I offer today two private relief bills to provide lawful permanent resident status to Nadezda Shestakova and her son, Ilya Shestakov.

The Shestakov family has lived and worked in Anchorage, Alaska for more than ten years. Nadezda has now returned to Russia, and Ilya is attending high school in Canada, in order to avoid further immigration problems, and to demonstrate that they intend to be good citizens who live within the letter of the law.

Nadezda's husband, Michail, is a legal immigrant working for Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC), an Alaska native corporation, and their youngest son is a United States citizen. Both remain in Anchorage awaiting the reunion of their family.

During their time in Alaska, Michail has been an exemplary employee of the Aleut Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was the Aleut Corporation who first brought this issue to my attention, as they wish to support the Shestakov family in any way possible.

The children have excelled in school, and Nadezda has remained an at- home mother, pursuant to the terms of her original visa.

The Shestakov family's problems began when they overstayed their visa due to an error by their attorney, who did not file the extension paperwork on their behalf, as requested.

These are upstanding members of the Alaska community, and they should not be punished due to an error by their former attorney. I would like to see this family reunited in Alaska, so that they can continue to contribute positively to our community.

Mr. President, I offer today two private relief bills to provide lawful permanent resident status to Nadezda Shestakova and her son, Ilya Shestakov.

The Shestakov family has lived and worked in Anchorage, Alaska for more than ten years. Nadezda has now returned to Russia, and Ilya is attending high school in Canada, in order to avoid further immigration problems, and to demonstrate that they intend to be good citizens who live within the letter of the law.

Nadezda's husband, Michail, is a legal immigrant working for Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC), an Alaska native corporation, and their youngest son is a United States citizen. Both remain in Anchorage awaiting the reunion of their family.

During their time in Alaska, Michail has been an exemplary employee of the Aleut Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was the Aleut Corporation who first brought this issue to my attention, as they wish to support the Shestakov family in any way possible.

The children have excelled in school, and Nadezda has remained an at- home mother, pursuant to the terms of her original visa.

The Shestakov family's problems began when they overstayed their visa due to an error by their attorney, who did not file the extension paperwork on their behalf, as requested.

These are upstanding members of the Alaska community, and they should not be punished due to an error by their former attorney. I would like to see this family reunited in Alaska, so that they can continue to contribute positively to our community.

Will the Senator yield?

I would not object as long as the majority's time is extended the same period of time.

I did not hear the Senator.

Madam President, is there time left? What is the situation with the time?

Madam President, I hope the good Lord will help me hold my temper, and I think that will be the case.

The Senator from Illinois said some things that were not true. I have not promised him one single thing. As a matter of fact, I asked for his apology once; I wouldn't accept it now.

I wish to tell the Senator that I first went to the North Slope--and there are people from the North Slope right up in the gallery--I went to the North Slope first in 1953 as a young U.S. attorney. I have been going there ever since. My best friends in Alaska are up there. My first wife used to go up there and go on whaling trips and spend days with them. We know this Arctic. You don't know the Arctic at all. They will tell you, as I will tell you, that it is 2,000 acres of Arctic. Is that worth this fight? Did I bring this fight on? It was the minority in the House that refused to vote for the rule that we passed on the reconciliation bill. This provision was in the reconciliation bill. The majority voted for it. Every other time it has been brought up, except once, the minority has filibustered keeping the commitment made to me by two Democratic Senators in 1980, Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas. They wrote the amendment; I didn't. They wrote the amendment that kept this area open for oil and gas leases.

I tell the Senator from Illinois that I was the one who drew the order that was issued creating an Arctic wildlife range in 1958 in which oil and gas leasing was specifically permitted. It has never been closed. The Jackson-Tsongas amendment kept it open for oil and gas exploration and development subject to an environmental impact statement being approved by both Congress and the President. But we are here today now.

As my good friend from West Virginia says, we are in the temple. I have lived in the temple now for 37 years. I have studied beside my friend from West Virginia. But I will tell him he is wrong. Nothing in this bill will allow the majority to go amok. No majority could do anything.

In the spirit of trying to prevent what happened before when the Chair was overruled in 1996--and it took 4 years before we restored rule XXVIII--in the spirit of that, we put a provision in this bill, at the suggestion of the former Parliamentarian, that we assured there would not be that hiatus. Should someone raise a point of order against this and the Chair would be overruled, we put a provision in it that would prevent rule XXVIII from being suspended again.

I have been called a lot of things in the last few weeks. I didn't think of putting this in the Defense bill. It was a group from the House, Members of the minority, who came to me and asked me to do this, put it in the Defense appropriations bill. I have managed the Defense appropriations bill, or my good friend from Hawaii now has managed it, since 1981. I challenge anyone in the Senate to say they have greater commitment to the military than the two of us.

As a matter of fact, as I look at the minority, I ask any one of you, has anyone ever come to me as chairman of the appropriations or any other function and told me that you needed help for your State, that I have turned you down? I have fought with you. I don't care whether it was Senator Harkin, Senator Byrd, every Member. I have probably been the most bipartisan Senator on this side of the aisle in history other than Arthur Vandenberg.

Now, once again, let me say this. Every time this subject has come up--living up to the commitment of Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson--but once, the minority has filibustered. That once we did get it passed and President Clinton vetoed it. So here I am now, after 25 years, and my two friends--they were friends, Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson--they were friends so close that it caused people at home to place full-page ads in the paper saying: Ted Stevens, come

home. You don't represent us. We believe the Congress will keep this commitment.

That was made in 1980. I have labored here and I have never violated the rules. There is nothing I have done here that has violated the rules. Nothing in the bill before us violates the rules. I have lived by the rules.

Now I find myself second in age and second in seniority to my friend from West Virginia--at least I am the senior one on this side.

I will talk about this amendment. First, we cannot change the judicial review provision.

I will not yield. No one yielded to me.

The impact of what I am saying is, we needed a new income stream.

I went to New Orleans with my friend Senator Vitter, and I sought Senator Landrieu's people down there. I saw the Gulf Coast States. They have lost everything. I have never seen a disaster such as that. I was faced with a question of how to find a revenue stream to help my friends. I know they are my friends. I know disasters when I see them.

I also was faced with a question from the border security people saying, they have to have money this year. We could not get it. We could not get approval of emergencies.

So I met with the Congressional Budget Office. I said, I think you have underestimated the income from ANWR, you have underestimated income from spectrum sales. I have a letter from CBO somewhere. I will be glad to put it in the Record. They said, yes, we did underestimate revenues from ANWR. It will be at least twice as much as estimated, but we cannot change it now. But it is true. They also agreed with me, making the assumptions I made, that there will be more money from spectrum. We allocated the spectrum money in the bill in excess to the amount committed in the bill just passed. We take care of those needs.

The first responders is the first group. When you look at the first responders group, they need equipment. There are people involved in homeland security. This bill has $3.1 billion for them in terms of the border security. There is $1.1 billion in emergency funds offset by future revenues from ANWR.

The second group deals with the first responders, particularly in New York and throughout the country. That tragedy made us aware that first responders could not communicate with one another. In this bill, we have allocated $1 billion for first responders. That is interoperable communications, equipment, grants. We know if that is there, they will be able to communicate with one another if, in fact, there is such a disaster.

We have also public safety people. They have come to me in the last week--this is a list of all the groups that have come to me now--in support of this bill. They need money to train and respond in the event we have another terrorist attack.

Also in this bill is money for home heating. Part of the income from ANWR is dedicated to home heating. The bill provides $2 billion in emergency money--yes, I said emergency--for 2006 in this bill.

If you take out ANWR, you take out that money. If you take out that money, you do not have money for LIHEAP this year other than what is in the bill just passed and that is what was available last year. As we all know, the price of energy has gone up.

Yes, a vote for this bill--and to bring cloture to this bill--helps our Nation's farmers--our State does not have many farmers. We have some great people out there trying to farm. They do a good job, but they do not have the problems of what I call the south 48. Their problems are high fuel prices, which we are paying, but also fertilizer. Fertilizer prices are off the wall. We do not have that.

We are able to get the money for disaster funding in this bill for farmers in dealing with the conservation programs that are so necessary to ensure productivity for the lands of our country for generations to come.

Some Members of the minority have challenged my sincerity with regard to this. I lived through an earthquake. I lived through the flood in Fairbanks in 1966. This vote is a vote for the people of Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi. As I said, I went down there. I viewed the damage of that city. I saw devastation in China in World War II where the Japanese wiped out cities, but I never saw devastation like I saw in New Orleans. It was mile after mile after mile of homes of ordinary people, not just damaged, but just not there. Not there.

When I came back, I made a commitment to the two Senators that I would help them. I have tried to keep that promise.

This bill provides on the Katrina side $29 billion for education, housing, reconstruction of disaster areas. It is very needed. The people of New Orleans cannot go home for Christmas. I cannot go home for Christmas. I have already canceled my trip. I spent one time before in the chair on New Year's Eve. I don't look forward to it. I want Members to know we will be here until we settle this problem. The severability clause in this bill is not new. It has been there before.

I am not a fair-weather friend. I have not turned down one person on that side of the aisle in my life without trying to help. I did not even go to you and say, Please help me. I did talk to one or more of you about the fact that I thought this was the thing to do. I don't deserve some of the comments that have been made by some Senators in this Senate right now.

We are going to stay here until this is finished. As I said, a vote for cloture is a vote for the troops. The Senator from Massachusetts says it is not. But the easiest way to get the money to troops is to vote for cloture. We will be home for Christmas if we do.

I say this to my friend from West Virginia: In all the time we have worked together I have great admiration for you and studied at your feet, but I do not believe I deserved that speech on the rules. I have not violated the rules. I do not ask the Senate to violate the rules. I ask them to vote for cloture, which is part of the rules, and see where we go from there.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

If the Leader's unanimous consent request is granted, the bill is thus sent to the House. Will that bill violate rule XXVIII? I am talking about the conference report. Will that conference report violate rule XXVIII?

I am speaking of the ANWR provisions and Katrina provisions and avian flu provisions. Will they violate rule XXVIII?

I can't hear the Chair.

So if this consent is granted, rule XXVIII is violated by this conference report; is that correct? Is that my understanding?

How do I join it? I want an agreement that this bill violates rule XXVIII.

I suggest the absence of a quorum. I do suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER The clerk will call the roll.

There has been some confusion. Let me restate my parliamentary inquiry. If sections C and E are removed, would the conference report as thus constituted contain violations of rule

I can assure you there are many more.

Thank you very much.

Wait. I will be glad to make a point of order, if you wish me to do it. Just so I understand the ruling, parliamentary inquiry: Did the Chair just say there is no point of order against this bill?

I want to make sure I understand this. I would be pleased to make a point of order so the Chair will rule, if you want me to do it. We have an understanding that there are violations of rule XXVIII in this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone understands what we have done. I worked 3 months of my life on this bill, primarily to find a way to help the people whom I saw in New Orleans. But this unanimous consent agreement strips sections C and D out of the bill. That section D allocated the funds that were to be received from the development of ANWR and the spectrum money that we expect to come into the Treasury in excess of what was estimated in the budget and earmarked it to a gulf recovery fund and earmarked it to the LIHEAP program under a different formula than the existing formula.

The net result is that those who are going to vote for the separate resolution--and I shall vote against it--will

be taking money from the first responders. Let me go through that. There was $3.1 billion for our first responders, for homeland security needs. We had $1 billion for our farmers and ranchers for farm conservation programs. The gulf coast recovery fund was estimated to have $5 billion in bonus bids and $40 billion in royalties over the total production years of ANWR. It would have committed 50 percent to Louisiana, 25 percent to Mississippi, 10 percent to Alabama, 10 percent to Texas, and 5 percent to Florida.

When we remove that, we do remove the $2 billion emergency spending for LIHEAP, and we remove the $3.1 billion for border security. That is money that was there. It was not funny money. It was money for this year.

So when you go back to New York, will you tell them why? That first responder money was $1,750,000,000 for the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Boston, Washington, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Houston. I showed before the list of all the people who supported that.

In terms of the preparedness grants for avian flu response, and for evacuation routes, refugee feeding and housing in the event of another disaster: $1 billion. But above all, the $1.1 billion in 2006 money for border security for the Northern border and the Southern border, we were overwhelmed with support for that. By voting for this, you will take it out. You are taking out C and D. You are taking out all the funding.

Now, what does that mean? It means that next year when we get the budget they will pick up the estimates we were able to make. The money for ANWR will next year be, I believe, estimated--I am sure it will; I have a letter--at $10 billion. This year it was $5 billion. That $5 billion that was in the budget will not be available to Louisiana. It will not be available to the disaster area. The $10 billion we estimated in addition to the $10 billion that is already in the budget for spectrum auctions will take place in 2008 and 2009. Actually, the FCC believes it is going to be $28 billion. We had used $8 billion in addition to the $10 billion that is in the budget. That, next year, will also be estimated, and it will be used by the budget. So that money is not going to be available for these things that Senator Cantwell's resolution will deny.

Senator Cantwell has authored this resolution to take out of the bill all of this money that we worked so hard to find a way to justify. We took future revenues coming into the Treasury, held them in the Treasury and earmarked them for specific purposes when they would arrive. We were told to have every reason to expect that money would come in. And the House agreed with us and allowed two separate emergency things to take place. One was $1.1 billion for border security. The other was $2 billion for LIHEAP for those who are in States that are affected by the current formula. That is primarily the Midwestern States and Maine.

But I want the Senate to know the work we did in finding this money and finding a way to hold it in the Treasury, it will not be held any more. This amendment takes out of the bill sections C and D. That means next year you will not find money on this approach for the help for the disaster areas or to deal with LIHEAP or to deal with homeland security. And $3 billion was earmarked in that fund when the money came in. It was to go to homeland security. We earmarked it. No future budget could use it.

By taking C and D out, by voting for it--all of you--I am going to go to every one of your States, and I am going to tell them what you have done. You have taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new revenue. It was money that should have been used for disaster. It should have been used for homeland security. And I am sure that the Senator from Washington will enjoy my visits to Washington because I am going to visit there often.

This was wrong. We should have kept sections C and D in this bill. This was something that we studied. We went with CBO. We talked to everyone possible. Everyone understood it in the House, what we did. The Senate refused to even look at it. I think most of you voted for it without even looking at it. California has lost its money for disasters in the future from that revenue source. It will have to find some way through the budget to compete with everybody else next year in a declining budget year. Because as the interest on the national debt goes up, there is less money to allocate for existing programs. I predict next year will be the toughest budget year in history.

But we took money from 2008, 2009, 2010, and we earmarked it. One thing you did not notice, we put in borrowing authority. In the event there is a disaster, the Secretary could go to Treasury and say: Mr. Secretary of Treasury, I exercise the borrowing authority and get that money right now. Did you know that? I bet half of you--none of you-- read the bill, none of you read the bill. But I am going to explain the bill to everyone in the country--the homeland security bill, the first responders, the interoperability part of it, the part of equipment for first responders.

The total amount of this bill has been destroyed by the Cantwell amendment. And I want to make sure everyone understands it. Emergency assistance for seniors and low-income Americans: That $2 billion was at a different theory, different formula than the existing law. We made it available to those in great need this winter. By this amendment, by voting for it, you take it away. Go ahead and vote for it. I am going to vote against it because I know what I did. I found and spent a lot of time with those who handle budget matters and particularly the CBO. Ask them. I will show you the letters. They said I was right, that was new revenue coming into the Federal Government. Everyone expects it, and we earmarked it for those things that we all believe in now.

Next year, are you going to give it to homeland security? Are you going to give it to border security? Are you going to give them $2 billion for LIHEAP? By the way, it did not have to be spent this year. It could carry over. It is to be used when needed, by higher prices. OK? It was not something that was total spending this year.

I do think the hurricane areas are the ones that lost most. There is a $14 billion estimate in C and D for the hurricane area: $7 billion for Louisiana, $3.5 billion for Mississippi, $1.4 billion for Texas, $1.4 billion for Alabama, and $1.2 billion for Florida.

Mr. President, this Senator has tried to do what is right. In the last month or 2 months, I have been pilloried by almost every newspaper in this country because of what has been said on this floor and what has been said by Members on the other side of this body. I have been called a liar. I have been told that I violated the rules. I have been told I did things in the middle of the night when no one knew it. I have been told almost everything. Even my grandchildren asked my son: Is that right?

I ask the Senate: Is that right? Should I lose the reputation I have gotten for 37 years in the Senate? No one has ever questioned my integrity before this year. Well, we had one little thing--I see an action from the Chair--about an ethics matter in my State, but that, too, was misunderstood. And I am glad to see that--I hope that has been put to rest. But in any event, no one has really questioned my actions here on the floor.

But they have been. People I have known on the other side, on a first-name basis, have come to me and talked to me about their problems--each one of you. Many of you have spoken here and said things that are not true, and you know they are not true. As I said, one Senator said something so bad, I asked for an apology. I would not accept his apology now.

Mr. President, I am going to go home, and I am going to think about this, and I am going to try to figure out what to do next year. But I know one thing, the 3 months I spent on this to try and help the people in the disaster area, with the sincere belief in the--how many of you have been to the disaster area? Did you spend a couple of days down there, as I did? Did you go and look at it? Did you see the miles and miles of homes that are gone? Did you see a great big barge, bigger than this room, on top of a schoolhouse? Did you see miles and miles of levees just laid down? Did you see the devastation as that tsunami came up that channel that man dug from New Orleans to the gulf?

Did you see that? Did you see how it devastated the land, and all the plant life is now dying because it was inundated in saltwater?

The earthquake in my State did that. I saw one town disappear. I saw a third of my city, Anchorage, disappear. You have to have had that experience to understand how I felt when I went to New Orleans.

You people didn't believe it. Many of you said I did this for political reasons, just a crass thing, pick up some money and give it away for votes. I never asked one of you for a vote. I talked to some of you about how you should vote, but I never went to you and said: You have to vote for me. You wouldn't be voting for me; it was voting for the people who would have been helped.

This has been the saddest day of my life. It is a day I don't want to remember, and I am sorry to see it come to an end. Because I am drawing the line now with a lot of people I have worked with before. I really am. I can't put in my mind the amount of time, the days I have spent with you working on your problems, and to know you said about me the things you said in the last 2 months. I say goodbye to the Senate tonight. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Robert J. Shue, a senior official in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, who in early January, 2006, will retire from a distinguished career spanning 37 years of exemplary service to America.

Mr. Shue began his career serving over 13 years in the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce. He joined the Department of Defense in 1982 and quickly became a highly valuable member of the Secretary of Defense's staff.

During his 23 years in the Comptroller's office, Mr. Shue was a highly respected leader and expert on the Defense Department budget and a wide range of related matters. He played a critical role in the formulation, approval, and execution of defense budgets that produced a much-needed strengthening of America's defense posture and enabled our military to fulfill its many demanding commitments.

Mr. Shue developed and led a diverse staff of analysts and liaison officers and made his office the Defense Department's primary leader in tracking and resolving high-level budget issues. He meticulously tracked numerous and complex actions affecting the funding available to the Department. He was a pivotal leader in presenting and justifying each new budget to the Congress and the American public.

Mr. Shue was vital to the Department's analysis of congressional action on Defense Department funding and to devising strategies to influence that action. He skillfully led staff in achieving and sustaining a highly productive relationship with congressional oversight committees. This resulted in accurate and constructive information flow between Congress and the Department, helping each meet its responsibilities more successfully.

Mr. Shue produced substantial top-quality analysis on complex economic, fiscal, and budget topics for the Secretary of Defense and other senior DoD leaders. He also improved support for these leaders by initiating important management reforms that saved staff time and improved the quality of decision making data.

For his extraordinary achievements, Mr. Shue received the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service. He earned the deep respect of leaders throughout the Department of Defense, in the Office of Management and Budget, and with Congress's defense oversight committees. These leaders benefited enormously from his exceptional knowledge and dedication. Mr. Shue's service has substantially helped our Nation's leaders make the wisest possible allocation of its defense resources in order to ensure America's future security.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Shue has had the resolute support of his wife, Suzi, and his three children. He has earned the deep gratitude of the American people. I wish Mr. Shue and his family all the best in the coming years.

Mr. President, I am sure it will come to no one's surprise that I desire to use this time to discuss the appropriations bill, the Defense appropriations bill that is before the Senate in the form of a conference report.

Over the night I have been thinking--as a matter of fact, too many nights I have been thinking about this conference report. As I thought about it, I thought about some of the comments that have been made that this is something new; that people should not put--

I should not put a nongermane portion into this conference report because it is a violation of the rules.

I remember the times we discussed Senator Byrd's steel loan guarantees or the mountaintop mining problem. I remember Senator Conrad coming to me in a conference report dealing with the great problems of disaster funding in South Dakota and the Devils Lake issue. I remember Senator Dorgan on that one, too. I remember Senator Harkin coming to me and asking me to deal with the multibillion-dollar environmental program and agriculture authorization program in an appropriations bill. I remember Senators Jeffords, Kohl, and Leahy asking me to deal with the Northeast dairy compact. I remember Senator Bill Nelson telling me about the terrible problems of the shuttle disaster and ensuring key operations at the Kennedy Space Center.

For Northeast Senators on LIHEAP, in this bill, at my urging, there is a provision for $2 billion as emergency funds for LIHEAP. The House was further reluctant to agree to that until we worked out the funding mechanisms for repayment of that money on an emergency basis when the funds come in from the sale of spectrum.

Similarly, it went to the Budget Committee. They agreed that the estimate in the bill for ANWR of $2.5 billion for revenues from bidding was low and they, in fact, have agreed that there will be approximately $5 billion coming in.

But they can't, under the procedures, change the estimate under the Budget Act.

In this bill, we have allocated that money to repay emergency funding for other programs, emergency funding that the House would not agree to before including the $1.1 billion for homeland security.

Some people say to me: What you are doing is dragging this in front of people. You want them to vote with you. I haven't talked to anyone in connection with what I have done in this bill and said I will do this if you will vote for this bill. I have done it because I believe those things are right to do. If the Senate believes they are right to do, they are going to vote for cloture on the conference report. If they want to send it back to the House, they will vote against the cloture on the conference report or they will vote in favor of a point of order against the conference report. And then it goes back to the House, the House has to reconstitute itself, and we have to appoint new conferees.

The House has sent word this morning to forget about that. They heard what I said, and they said we will ask for a continuing resolution for the Defense Department appropriations until we all come back. Our people have gone home for Christmas, they say. I don't know whether they will.

But all I know is we are at a crucial juncture of a series of things, and one of them is, in fact, the subject I have dealt with now for 25 years since Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas came to me and said stop the filibuster against the bill called ANILCA in 1980. President Clinton wanted it very much. And they said we will set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic as you have requested, and it will be open to oil and gas development until that process is finished. It will not became part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until that is over.

For 25 years now, I have tried to get that commitment fulfilled. We passed a bill and Clinton vetoed it. We have had it before several Senate sessions, and it has always been filibustered on the other side. This year, we are successful in getting it in the reconciliation bill, which is the bill before the Senate right now, at urging of a bipartisan group in the House. They urged me to allow them to defeat that so there would be easy passage for this bill over there. It was passed very quickly, and it is before us now. They said put the amendment on the Defense appropriations bill and we will help you get it passed in the House. They did that. An overwhelming majority voted for it.

Now we hear all sorts of things--I am getting tired of being accused of so many things--outrageous, cantankerous Senator who is responsible for the bridges. I wasn't responsible for the bridges. They arose in the House. But I did defend them here in the Senate.

As a practical matter, history is behind us now, and we have before us a bill which is the Defense bill.

I have managed this bill, or the Senator from Hawaii has managed this bill, since 1981. I don't think there are any two Senators who know any more about funding for the Department of Defense than the two of us. We pride ourselves in doing a good job, and we have done the best possible job we can now. We have I think two of the best staff directors in the Senate. Sid Ashworth sits beside me now and Charles Houy is always beside Senator Inouye.

We have a bill before the Senate now and a conference report that provides $446.7 billion to the Department of Defense. It has a $50 billion contingency for Defense. It is a conference report which should be voted on.

I hear some people say they are going to oppose cloture on the conference report. I can't imagine anyone voting against cloture on a conference report for Defense. You can argue about some of the amendments that were attached to it. That is fine. They can be voted on individually by points of order. But the conference report on Defense is for the troops. The conference report on Defense really goes far beyond the amendments that are on this bill.

Those who vote against this conference report must know that what they are doing is they are setting up a delay in the process of getting money to the troops.

I have argued since July that this bill should not be delayed. I am not responsible for the delay. What I am responsible for now, since this the last bill, is attaching three important amendments to it.

One deals with Avian flu. That issue was raised by Senator Harkin. When I managed the bill on the floor, I first said that is extraneous, and we shouldn't put it in the bill. The more I thought about it, I went to him and said: You are right. Let us take this to conference and see what we can do.

We took it to conference and what resulted was not only money for avian flu, but the money for avian flu was approximately the same as Senator Harkin sought.

But we have added liability compensation provisions to it. This is a stronger amendment now than Senator Harkin asked me to add to the bill.

I ask: Are we going to vote against getting ready for the pandemic? If this bill falls, we will go back into conference. But a point of order against this bill under rule XXVIII, as I understand it--I will explain that in a minute--will take all of those, and it is a matter for the Senate to decide.

If a rule XXVIII point of order is raised against the conference report, the conference report in its entirety collapses. Rule XXVIII does not act similar to the Byrd rule and the offending provisions are taken out of the bill. A brandnew conference will have to be convened and new conferees will have to be appointed by each House. When the conference convenes, the conferees have to be circumspect about including any matter not committed to the bill by each bill from the House.

In other words, we will go back and be in conference, and we will come back and still be right where we are now. The items for the avian flu would be added. It may be that ANWR would be deleted.

I have to tell you, if we are going to a new conference, I am going to argue to put it back in. It should be there, and the votes in the conference are there to put it back in.

We are going to face up to ANWR either now, or Christmas Day, or New Year's Eve, or sometime--however long we stay in. We are going to face the question of should we keep the commitment made by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas.

This bill goes beyond, though, in terms of the subject matter that should be discussed.

We have to realize that ANWR is germane to the bill. Nothing is more germane and essential to national defense than energy. Our Department of Defense consumes 110 to 112 million barrels of oil. I have a chart concerning that. That is the consumption of Department of Defense.

The consumption during this global war on terror has risen to 133 million barrels of oil. This is a 20-percent increase in demand due to the general war on terror.

ANWR supports national security because it unquestionably will increase the national supply.

So when you vote on the question of whether this is beyond the scope, sure it was not in either bill, but is it germane?

Is it part of national defense? Listen to what Senator Jackson said at the time we debated the oil pipeline amendment, which Senators will remember was passed by one vote when the Vice President of the United States broke the tie.

In almost every issue I have been involved in since I have been here about Alaska, it has been a narrow vote. Why? Because extreme environmentalists think it is their playground, that they should set the policies for Alaska.

Here is what Senator Jackson said as chairman of the Energy Committee. This involves national security. It is a national security issue. He said this:

It involves national security. There is no serious question today that it is urgently in the national interest to start North Slope oil flowing to markets. Today we have a pipeline. I ask unanimous consent this report be printed in the Record following my remarks. It is titled ``Prudhoe Decline Highlights U.S. Oil Dependence.''

It shows Alaska's oil has decreased. Here are the figures. At one time we went up to 1.885 million. We actually have an ultimate capacity of 2.1 million. There were some surges where we transported more than 2 million barrels a day. Its design capacity is more than 2 million barrels a day. Now, throughput is 935,000. I was informed recently that the amount going through at this time, the average production, is down to 381,000. We have a pipeline designed to carry 2 million barrels of oil and it is running at a little over 30 percent throughput.

Where is the oil to come from? ANWR. It should have come from ANWR. If President Clinton had not vetoed our bill in 1995, it would be coming through now.

I urge my colleagues to think about what ANWR means and why we are here. We are here because every time we have been here, we have been frustrated by filibuster. Is it unethical to try to find a way around a filibuster, to try and find a way so we can fulfill our constitutional right--that is, to have an issue decided by a majority vote? All I am asking is to have an issue decided by majority vote.

Cloture is a creature of the Senate. The concept of unlimited debate is a creature of the Senate. I abide by it. I believe in it. However, we also have the process to curb that; that is, to have cloture on a bill. Now it is cloture on a Defense bill. I don't ever recall having to get cloture on a Defense appropriations bill.

As I said, in the 1973 timeframe when we had the Alaska oil pipeline built, a most controversial bill at that time, there was not one Senator who suggested a filibuster. We all knew oil was a matter of national security. It was agreed it would be an up-or-down vote. As a matter of fact, we had two votes. We had the first vote, and because one person was off the floor, we then had a second vote. That person came back to the Senate. He was standing right outside the door. When he voted, it created a tie. The Vice President then broke the tie.

We are at the point now where we should recognize what we have done is to finally have found a way to get a vote on the basic issue in the Senate in a way that will take the bill to the President. It is a DOD bill. It is a bill the President will sign, I am certain. But keep in mind what else is in this bill.

Before I get to that, I have to remember my good friend Judge James Buckley. I said before in the Senate, he was one of the first ones to oppose drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In January of this year he sent me a letter, unsolicited. He says this in the final paragraph:

Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past

13 years (including a recent camping trip to Alaska's North

Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive

to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see any

threat to the values I cherish.

He changed his mind. He said, do your best to get it drilled.

I ask unanimous consent to have his letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, beyond that, we have a series of problems I would like to mention in closing. Then I will be back. That is the question of the point of order.

In 1996, we overturned a point of order on the aviation bill. It was a question of the FAA conference report, conference on the FAA. Senator Hollings, my great friend, Fritz Hollings, offered an amendment to that bill. The Chair ruled that Senator Hollings' amendment exceeded the scope of the conference. The Senate voted 56 to 39 to overturn the ruling of the Chair. I was part of that debate and in support of Senator Hollings. There are still in the Senate a series of people who voted to overturn that Chair. Senator Chafee's father, the former Senator Chafee did, Senator Conrad did, Senator DeWine did, Senator Domenici did, Senator Feinstein did. We have a whole series of people. My great friend, brother, Senator Inouye did, Senator Jeffords did. We have a series of Members who did. Senator McConnell did. Senator Pryor's father did. Senator Reid did. So did several other Members here today.

I am making the point it is not something new to ask the ruling of the Chair be disagreed with. We seek to settle the disagreement over whether the amendments are within the scope--they technically are beyond the scope--but should the scope be adhered to in the circumstances today? Should they be adhered to for avian flu? Is there any Senator who wants to protest against that? Should they be adhered to on Katrina? Sure, if there is advance appropriations on Katrina, I found ways to advance moneys to the people in those disaster areas and repay them with future income.

The House of Representatives has approved that. The Committee on the Budget says if you make the assumptions I make, it is a fair way to do things. No, they did not say ``fair way'' but a way to do things.

When you look at it right now, the issue comes down to my amendment and that is ANWR. ANWR, to me, is the most significant thing we can do today because we are down now to importing almost 60 percent of our oil. No matter what anyone says, that is an enormous burden on our economy. It is such a great burden that the scope of it has to be detailed in order to find the solutions for the problems we face.

Remember, in defense now, 7 of the 10 suppliers of this country for petroleum for defense are not U.S. suppliers. Did you know that? Of the 10 suppliers of petroleum to defense, 7 are foreign countries. Twenty percent of the petroleum the DOD purchases comes from Middle East countries that embargoed our oil in the past.

We are dealing with a matter of security to increase our domestic supply. Our State not only produces oil, we refine in Alaska a considerable amount of the jet fuel used by our military. A considerable portion of our military comes to Alaska each year: 52 million gallons in Elmendorf, 21 million gallons in Eielson, 3.5 million gallons for Coast Guard, 76.5 million gallons in terms of our total purchases from our refined oil.

I do believe we have more than doubled our energy imports since 1969 and we are exporting now approximately half a billion a day for foreign oil. If that money were spent in the United States--we only spent $1 billion of it in the United States--it would produce 12,500 jobs. In 2003, we outsourced 1.3 million jobs by importing oil rather than producing it in the United States.

In the area where the distinguished occupant of the Chair comes from, Louisiana produces a substantial portion of this oil, but many of the facilities down there have been damaged or are in need of repair.

We should be doing everything we can to diversify the sources of our energy supplies. By developing the coastal plain, we will create between 700,000 and 1 million jobs. We will put $60 million back into the economy each day, money that will be paid to U.S. employees and paid to the United States, which will increase the flow of taxes into our Treasury.

I apologize for being slightly tired and sort of disconnected in terms of how I deal with this process, but I summarize by this: We have disaster assistance, we have home energy assistance, LIHEAP, we have interoperable equipment for the first responders, we have

emergency preparedness for the cities and the States, we have border security, 1.1 billion of real money, 1996 money. There is no other money available for 2006. It includes money for infrastructure and border assistance. And we also have money for agricultural assistance.

The amendment of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, really does a tremendous job in meeting some of the disaster needs beyond those which will be met by my amendment.

I will have more to say later. But, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to think. We can either pass this bill soon and do our job and fulfill the demands and desires of millions of people, or we can pull this bill down, the conference report down, and ask the House to reconstitute another committee, a conference committee, and go back into the conference committee with approximately the same conferees and try to reach a different result.

I, frankly, do not see there would be much difference. As a matter of fact, if I am a member of that conference committee, it will produce the same result. So face up to the issue now and decide whether you want to provide for energy independence in the future, whether you want to provide for LIHEAP, for disaster, for first responders, for border security, or whether you just want to continue debating ANWR.

Thank you very much.

Exhibit 1

Prudhoe Decline Highlights U.S. Oil Dependence

(By Tarek El-Tablawy)

New York.--Alaska North Slope crude oil production, once

heralded as a domestic mother lode, has hit a new output

low--embodying the precarious balance confronting the United

States as it struggles for energy security in an era of

volatility in the international oil market.

The decline in Alaska is led by a slump in output from the

once-mammoth Prudhoe Bay field, which has been producing

since 1969. At its height in fiscal 1988, the field produced

an average of 1.6 million barrels per day. In fiscal 2005, it

was down to 381,000 barrels per day. Overall production in

the North Slope has dropped to an average of 916,000 barrels

per day from 2.01 million barrels in the same period.

In Alaska, re-boosting output is as much dictated by

politics as it is by geology.

While the Bush administration has pushed for opening a

pristine Alaskan refuge believed to hold about 10 billion

barrels of recoverable crude oil, environmentalists argue

such a move would only temporarily delay the inevitable while

ruining the delicate arctic habitat.

For Alaskans, Prudhoe's decline in particular, and the

North Slope's in general, transcends politics and raises

fiscal and emotional issues. Each year, state residents

receive a substantial dividend from an investment account

built over the year by a portion of oil tax revenues.

Those dividends, based on market investment performance,

have ranged from a record $1,964 per resident in 2000 to $845

in 2005. But dividends are estimated to rise over the next

decade, as returns on investments take the place of declining

oil royalties and taxes that go into the fund.

``The word I would use is concern,'' said Michael Williams,

the Alaska Department of Revenue's chief economist. North

Slope crude ``represents a substantial portion of income for

the state. The issue is: What's going to happen when it goes

very low, or runs out?''

State officials are negotiating with three major oil

producers to build a North Slope natural gas pipeline to

markets in the Midwest they hope will compensate for losses

from the decline in oil. State officials say oil is expected

to account for at least 74 percent of Alaska's unrestricted

general purpose revenue through 2013.

The history of Prudhoe, and the several fields discovered

later that once helped buoy the state's oil daily production

to over 2 million barrels, offers a window into the dichotomy

of the energy security debate in the United States as oil

prices hover tenaciously around $60 per barrel.

The fall in the North Slope comes even with the startup of

the Northstar and Alpine fields which, with a combined

projected output of over 200,000 barrels per day, many hoped

would partially offset the decline in Prudhoe Bay.

Prudhoe ``was one of the last great fields in America,''

said Bill Samuelson, an analyst with the Houston-based

consultancy, Purvin & Gertz.

``When you have such a large field that is declining so

steeply, it's hard to offset that decline,'' he said. ``It's

inevitable.''

Projections for new fields slated to come on-stream over

the next 10 years are expected to do little but temporarily

offset the steady decline. North Slope output, according to

the state, is projected to drop to about 833,000 barrels per

day by 2015, with 50 percent of that production coming from

new fields.

Inevitability is an immediate issue across the country.

U.S. domestic crude production, currently estimated at 5.4

million barrels per day, is slated to peak at 5.9 million

barrels per day in 2014 before starting a steady decline to

an estimated 4.99 million barrels in 2025, according to the

Annual Energy Outlook, 2006, issued Monday by the Department

of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

High crude prices have allowed small producers to restart

``stripper wells''--fields that were otherwise economically

unfeasible because of recovery costs and minuscule reservoir

pools. Such activity has increased in states like Kansas and

Kentucky.

I thought I had time, but I am happy to yield to anyone.

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

Mr. President, I have asked for this time to share with the Senate the letters of support I have received as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in support of the Department of Defense appropriations conference report. These groups include public safety groups, including: Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, called APCO; Congressional Fire Services Institute; International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Association of Fire Chiefs; Major Cities Chiefs Association; Major Counties Sheriffs' Association; National League of Cities; and National Association of Counties.

In addition to that list, there are letters from labor: Veterans of Foreign War; Naval Reserve Association; American Legion; American Petroleum Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Ducks Unlimited; National Association of Manufacturers; Campaign for Home Energy Assistance; National Defense Council; Edison Electric Institute; Reserve Officers Association; and Chamber of Commerce.

Also in support are the Air Transport Association and the American Gas Association.

Having read that list, I want to read from some of those letters, which I consider to be very significant. Before getting to that, however, I have just received an announcement from the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that if this conference report is not approved, the House believes that a continuing resolution should fund the Government. I do believe we ought to listen to the voices from the House concerning what is going to happen if this conference report is not approved.

The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, which includes all of these people I have talked about now, in terms of all of the associations with regard to public safety, has said they support this measure, that it can provide $1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. There is $1 billion in State and local governments preparedness grants.

I have the letter from American Legion which specifically points out that they have reviewed the conference report and support its enactment. It states specifically:

The American Legion continues to support the further

development of domestic sources of energy to include

increasing petroleum exploration and production in an

environmentally sensible manner so as to reduce America's

reliance on foreign petroleum.

That is a very positive statement concerning the ANWR provisions.

Veterans of Foreign War have written to me saying they believe this conference report should be approved as quickly as possible. I will ask to have their letter printed in the Record.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute says that, yes, there should be a vote now on this conference report. They specifically applaud the provision that will provide for initiating exploration and development of the Arctic plain and states that environmental groups have spread misinformation about ANWR for years. I will ask for that to be printed in the Record. It points out the legislation passed by the House will limit oil and gas drilling only to involve 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain and states there is strong support for this provision.

I have a memo from Unions Responsible for ANWR Development. It specifically urges support of this legislation because ANWR will create thousands of jobs to the members of America's union organizations. It is signed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; the Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win Federation; the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, AFL-CIO; Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Change to Win Federation; and the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.

It specifically includes a letter from John Engler, who is the head of the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing large and small manufacturers in every industrial sector. It specifically says:

We simply cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. The

NAM will consider as possible Key Manufacturing Votes in the

109th Congress NAM voting record all votes--including points

of order, cloture and/or other procedure votes--

on this bill.

The Naval Reserve Association has written to me indicating that they, too, would like to have this spending bill to provide assistance for Guard and Reserve members passed as soon as possible.

The American Legion, as I said, has indicated their support for this bill.

Ducks Unlimited has sent out a release that indicates that $1 billion for conservation funding will be dedicated to voluntary, private, landowner-friendly programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and they ask for the immediate approval of this bill. They sent a similar release to the House of Representatives expressing their overwhelming support for this bill. I think this is one of the great organizations of the United States with over a million supporters that ought to be listened to.

The Edison Electronic Institute also supports this bill. They state:

[This] conference report that was approved in the House

earlier this week provides a total of $2.5 billion in base

funding and $1.7 billion in emergency assistance funding for

a total of $4.2 billion for the LIHEAP . . . double the

highest funding level ever achieved--

for this program, and it is due to the ever-increasing cost of energy. This assistance is necessary. Particularly, this assistance is necessary for the States and local governments affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

There is also a letter from the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance. This is really a copy of their release. It says:

The Defense appropriations bill appears to be our best and

possibly last opportunity for an increase for this vital

program.

They have issued a call to action.

The Campaign for Home Energy Assistance urges you to call

your Senators today and ask them to vote for this Defense

appropriations bill. . . .

The National Defense Council likewise has written to us urging that after decades of debate concerning energy resource issues, this bill be passed. They have a fairly long statement on their position. Unquestionably, this is very important support for the bill from the National Defense Council Foundation.

The Reserve Officers Association of America issued a call to action asking for support for this bill, for passage of this conference report. I urge Members to consider their support.

I have a letter from the American Gas Association written to us, sent out as a release urging support of this legislation to finally approve the provisions that have been passed not only by the House but by the Senate in this calendar year.

There is almost an unlimited number of letters that have been coming into our office urging support. As I indicated in my opening comments, the Air Transport Association sent a letter also. They sent a copy of that letter to me urging that the enactment of this bill be swift. I think it is very interesting that the Air Transport Association, representing the U.S. airline industry which has taken such a hard hit on the increase in gas prices, should show overwhelming support for this bill.

I have sent every Member a letter outlining what is coming with regard to the rule XXVIII point of order. I wish to put that letter in the Record so there is no mistake about what I have told the Members concerning our position on this potential rule XXVIII point of order.

My chief of staff points out to me the items in Congressman Jerry Lewis's release. As I understand, it is not proper under the rules to announce the vote in the House; therefore, I will not disclose it. I am sure it is proper to say the House overwhelmingly passed this bill. It urges a vote now on the conference report and wants this conference report to be passed. It does not want to be forced to rely on a continuing resolution to support the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I have tried to outline some of these items. I will be bringing more before the Senate as they are received.

I again repeat my request that the letters I read be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I don't know how many more times I will be before the Senate before this matter comes up tomorrow. I do hope it will come to the floor early tomorrow because we need time to consider the points of order that will lie against the conference report.

To me, approval of the conference report really means we are putting aside the debate that might take place on the individual items that may be raised here. The conference report is not subject to amendment, but it is possible to have almost unending delay on the points of order. They are debatable and, therefore, the reason for the cloture motion is primarily to reduce debate on these various points of order we will have and find some way to assure there will be an early passage of the conference report.

This is a conference report providing enormous assistance to the Department of Defense, particularly the $50 billion in emergency funding that is primarily required to support those who are in our uniform defending the Nation in terms of their activities in the war on terror. I urge the Senate to vote cloture to limit that debate. We will have the points of order. We will have the points of order under the Budget Act under rule XXVIII, but there is no reason to have unlimited debate on those points or order.

The cloture motion is for the best interest of the Department of Defense to get this bill to the Department of Defense as quickly as possible. If those points of order are sustained, obviously, we will have to go back to conference, have a new conference, and we will have to appoint new conferees. The House is spread all over the country. How quickly we can do that, I don't know.

I do believe that it is in the best interest of the Nation to adopt this conference report. It does not contain items, as far as this subject, ANWR, is concerned, that have not passed before. We have approved ANWR before in this Reconciliation Act, and the House has passed the act before. We have added provisions I described dealing with the funding that will come in from ANWR. But otherwise it was considered before and passed by the House of Representatives previously.

I don't know how much more time I have. Has my time expired?

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I don't know who is to come next. I don't want to charge any time to the pending measure. That was the understanding. So I will just let the time run for a minute.

I will again remind the Senate that the money that is in the bill that is before us, the conference report that is before us, that its emergency funding will not survive another conference. It will only survive this conference because the money that was predicted to be available from income from the sale of oil and gas leases in ANWR--and the OMB did increase its estimate from $2.5 billion to $5 billion. However, they did not increase that for budget purposes. They confirmed the fact that it would come in. So we have allocated that money under this bill, particularly to LIHEAP, to low-income housing assistance. That cannot survive another conference if ANWR is deleted.

So for those people who want that money, and it has been pointed out that is an enormous increase due to the situation that exists because of the fantastic increase in home heating costs, it does not have to be spent. It is there in reserve to be spent. We do not mandate that they spend that money. We make it available to them on an emergency basis if it is necessary, and it may well be necessary through the balance of this winter.

So I do urge the Members of the Senate to vote for the conference report, vote for cloture on the conference report, and help us prepare for the points of order that may be raised after the cloture motion has been approved. I am getting tired, and I apologize.

Now is my time expired?

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I can follow the Senator.