Floor Statements

Madam President, I am sad to hear a Senator say that this amendment that is controversial, the amendment to allow exploration and development of the Arctic Coastal Plain, has never passed the Senate. It passed the Senate this year as part of the reconciliation package. It passed both bodies in 1995 and was vetoed by President Clinton.

With regard to the question of the concept of matters being added to conference reports, we voted in 1995 on a motion to overturn the Chair. It was a motion to overturn the Chair on the aviation reauthorization reform bill. It was the last bill before the Congress at that time. At that time, there was an appeal from the Chair, and there was a vote to overturn the Chair. The Chair was not sustained. On that vote, there were a series of Senators, here now, who voted to disagree with the Chair.

We are not changing the rules at all. Rule XXVIII is not affected by the amendment I am presenting to the Senate. I have been around here 37 years. I know the rules. I was chairman of the Rules Committee for a while. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote, during the time I was Rules Committee chair--I am still on the Rules Committee--the comments the Senator read.

As a practical matter, the right to disagree with a ruling of the Chair is inherent in any body, any legislature. In Roberts Rules of Order, it is a little different than it is here. But we have the right to appeal the ruling of the Chair. When we do, it is not destroying the rule. It represents a difference of opinion.

Do you know what the difference of opinion now is? It is whether this amendment, which is the amendment to go forward, as the Congress indicated in 1980 in the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, with the exploration and development of the Arctic Plain of Alaska, whether that is part of and related to national security.

Oil is related to national security. I will provide the statistics later on how much oil the Department of Defense uses. This is an amendment to pursue domestic production of oil, without which we will be in great difficulty. The largest consumer of oil in the United States is the Department of Defense. If the opposition disagrees with us on that position, then let's see whether the Senate believes that this is a matter that is in the interest of national security.

We should not be having people say that it has never been done, that I am trying to do something that breaks the rules. We don't break the rules. We are living by the rules. This amendment is here because of the rules. I intend to enforce the rules. One of the procedures in this Senate is to appeal the ruling of the Chair. We haven't had that ruling yet. There appears to be a presumption that it will happen.

But let's go back to 1980, to that time when we had the Alaska oil pipeline amendment. At that time, we had the same opposition from the extreme environmental groups. It was going to destroy Alaska. It was going to destroy caribou. It was going to be inconsistent with our environment. There was no filibuster. There wasn't even the threat of filibuster. The Senate at that time agreed that oil was a matter of national security, and we don't filibuster national security issues. As a matter of fact, in defense matters, on the defense Appropriations bill, et cetera, we need 51 votes, not 60, on various matters with regard to compliance and whatnot of the Senate. There are exceptions here. They could get a couple of 60-degree votes when we have this bill before the Senate.

But the point I am trying to make is, the Senate, at the time we passed the Alaska oil pipeline amendment, did not filibuster. What has happened is the constant filibuster now during this decade by people who persist in trying to reverse the provisions of the 1980 act.

I will never forget the 1980 act because that act, in 1978, had been blocked by my then-colleague, Senator Gravel, in the closing minutes of the Congress in 1978. It had passed the House. It passed the Senate. It had gone to conference. It came out of conference, and Senator Gravel blocked that by demanding that the bill be read after the adjournment resolution had been presented to the Senate.

In the next Congress in 1979, my good friend Senator Jackson of Washington came to me and said: Ted, if you want to be involved in consideration of this bill this year, you must come back to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I had left that committee to come to the Appropriations Committee. But as a matter of fact, I did. I left the Appropriations Committee and went back to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. We worked on that same bill then for 1979 and 1980.

That was a period of extreme stress for me. I lost my wife in the 1978 accident that happened after the blocking of that bill. We all knew that we had to

come back in. As a matter of fact, the flight we were on was a flight to raise money to come back and ask people to help us lobby for the passage of something to get that bill done.

At that time Alaska's selection of lands under the act were blocked by what was called a freeze. They were blocked by an order made by President Carter under the Antiquities Act. We could not go forward without getting an act passed. So I split off from my then-colleague and said: I am going to help you. I only want one thing in this bill for sure. And that is, I wanted the right to continue to explore the Arctic Plain. The two Senators in charge of that bill, Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts, Senator Jackson of Washington said: You are right. And they put in the amendment that created section 2002 in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. It was their amendment.

These people are filibustering fulfilling the commitment of Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson. As a matter of fact, I did vote for that bill and, at the time, there were enormous full-page ads in newspapers in my State which said: Come home, Ted. You no longer represent us. We can't trust the Congress.

I said: I trust the Congress. I particularly trust Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson. Unfortunately, God willed otherwise. Those two gentlemen left us prematurely and, as a consequence, we have fought now for 25 years to fulfill that commitment.

Let me tell you a little bit more history, Madam President. I was in the Department of Interior during the Eisenhower days. In 1958, I helped write the order that created what was known as the Arctic Wildlife Range. In that range, 9 million acres in northeast Alaska, oil and gas exploration was permitted.

The reason I asked for this amendment in 1980 was that I wanted to continue the fact that oil and gas exploration would be permitted.

I see I am close to the end of my time. I will finish my statement later; others want to speak but I want to finish with this one comment, with the permission of the Chair.

I am not trying to turn over the rules. I am not trying to do anything that others have not done. We have a full right to appeal the ruling of the Chair, should it take place, that we disagree with the basic assumption that oil is not needed in the interest of national security. And those of us who will vote to make sure we vote on this conference report are ones who believe in national security. We cannot mention the vote in the House, but we can mention the statements in the House. See what they said on the House floor. We believe in national security. This amendment must go through as part of the National Security Defense Appropriations Act of 2005.

I yield the floor. I will be back throughout the day, Madam President.

The Senator didn't say that.

Madam President, is it possible for me to regain the floor?

Madam President, let me say this. If it was possible to have an appeal of the ruling of the Chair in 1996, it is possible now. That is not breaking the rules. With regard to the version of this bill, we took the bill that passed the House and have added to it the provisions that allow funding for disaster areas and other items, but the basic portion of this bill that is coming to us in this amendment is, in fact, the bill that passed the House before.

Again, I want to say this. I think there is a lot of really extreme comments about this Senator's actions. They can't come close to really offending the rules themselves. I have done nothing illegal. I have done nothing immoral. I have done nothing wrong. I am pursuing--as a matter of fact, there hasn't been a ruling of the Chair yet, but thinking there might be, we followed the procedure that was established by the distinguished minority leader in 2000. We put a provision in there saying, look, if there is a ruling and consideration of this amendment, we do not want to disturb the rules.

By the way, after the aviation ruling that I mentioned, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Reform Act, the rule wasn't changed; it was the interpretation of the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian believes that after a Chair is overruled, the rule is no longer enforceable. It is still there, but it is a question of enforcement, not a question of repealing.

Even if we have an appeal of the Chair, and the Chair is overruled, we won't take rule XXVIII out of the rules. It will be a question of whether the Parliamentarian will tell the Chair that based upon precedent that rule would no longer be enforceable.

So we put a provision in the bill saying in the event a ruling of the Chair is overturned and there is a situation where the Parliamentarian would advise the Chair that means rule XXVIII is no longer enforceable, then we use the same approach of the Senator from Nevada, and we say that will not be the case. We do not intend to destroy the rule. We intend to support the rule. We don't want it to be in hiatus.

After the 1996 act, it was inoperable for 4 years because of the interpretation of the Parliamentarian, based upon precedent. I am not criticizing the Parliamentarian; that is the basic precedent of the Senate. Once the Chair is overruled, that rule is unenforceable until reinstated. We are saying that is not our intent this time. We don't intend to attack the rule. We want the rule to stay in place. We want to make sure anybody who votes for this, in the national security interest, that we must proceed with oil exploration in the Arctic, is not being told, Oh, you are going to destroy rule XXVIII. It wasn't destroyed in 1996. It was made inoperable by an interpretation of the Parliamentarian.

By the way, again, that was consistent with precedent. We are saying that precedent will not apply to this bill, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, when it comes before the Senate.

This is going to go on for a long time, but one thing I know is that I am not violating the rules. When I proceed with this amendment in the conference report, which I fully intend to do, and trust the Senate--I am putting my faith in the Senate to support national security as a part of the conference report.

Remember now, we don't have an amendment. We have a conference report now. That is treated in a different manner than an amendment to the bill. I am not offering an amendment to the bill. I am managing a conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for 2006. As such, I expect that bill to pass, and I expect that bill to pass containing the provision which is in the interest of national security, that we now proceed with exploration and development of the Arctic Plain as was intended by two great Senators, Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Tsongas. It was their concession to the State of Alaska, as President Carter insisted on withdrawing 105 million acres of Alaska. Only 1.5 million acres were assured for the future development of our State. One point five million were assured for the future development of the State, and 105 acres were set aside and not available for development. There can be no oil and gas development in those other areas. In this area,

we allowed 1.5 million acres to stay open for development.

More will be said later. I thank the Chair for her patience.

Madam President----

Pardon me. I apologize.

Madam President, I again apologize to the Senator from Nevada. I thought he had completed his statement.

I want to read to the Senate the comments I made in 1996 at the time the point of order was pending on the FAA conference report, just to show I have maintained a constant position with regard to this. I said this:

Mr. President, this is a rather difficult situation. We

have just passed, recently, a Defense appropriations bill. I

was the chairman of that conference. Before it was over, we

had a whole series of other bills, a series of legislative

items. It was not necessary to raise a point of order.

Everybody knew we had exceeded the scope of the conference.

Now, this is 1996. I am again quoting:

I ask any chairman of a conference if he or she has ever

really been totally restricted by this rule? . . . When the

leader became aware that Senator Kennedy was going to raise

this point of order, the leader determined to raise it

himself. I take it that having done that, there is no

question this is a rather significant occasion. I hope it

will be a rather narrow precedent.

I point out to the Senate that this provision is not only

the only matter that exceeds the scope of the conference. We

had to include, at this administration's request, special

authority for the executive branch to purchase and deploy

explosive detection devices. We put in here the provisions

that pertain to the rights of survivors of victims of air

crashes. We put in the provisions requiring passenger

screening companies to be certified by the FAA. That is not

required under any existing law. We put in restrictions on

underage pilots, following the one disaster that involved a

young girl who was a pilot. We put in a provision requiring

the FAA to deal with structures that interfere with air

commerce.

My point is, as we get to the end of a session, we, of

necessity, include in a bill extraneous matters totally

beyond the scope. We know they are beyond the scope. As

the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I

knew all those items we brought to the floor earlier this

week were beyond the scope of the conference, but we did

not anticipate anyone would raise a point of order.

Anticipating that Senator Kennedy would bring this point of

order before the Senate, the leader made this point of order.

I ask the Senate to keep in mind this will be a rather

limited precedent, in my opinion. I do not know whether the

Chair will agree with me, but clearly when you get to the end

of a Congress, some things have to be done. We did not have

time to take up separate bills. We held a hearing on the bill

in the Senate Commerce Committee dealing with the rights of

victim-survivors of air disasters. They pleaded with us to

include that bill in this legislation. We have done so.

In other words, this point of order is not only valid, in

my judgment, against the amendment offered by Senator

Hollings, but against the other provisions where we have

exceeded the scope on various matters on this bill.

What I am saying is we have had this process year after year. I know of other amendments that have gone into bills like this at the last minute where people tried to get passed something that did not pass before, and because of the circumstances they passed.

In this instance, again, the Senate is going to hear this over and over again, that this is a matter of national security that I have for 25 years tried to support the position taken by the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Massachusetts that this area should be open to oil and gas exploration. We have had two environmental impact statements. They have proved that no permanent damage will be done to this area. We have disproved all the allegations concerning destruction of wildlife. As a matter of fact, there are seven to eight times more caribou on the North Slope today than there were at the time the oil pipeline was built and at the time we were told if that pipeline is built there will never be another caribou in Alaska, in effect. They said we would destroy it.

The other day, they called it the Serengeti. I do not want to point out the Senator who said it, but one Senator went up there and viewed it. When that Senator got off the helicopter, that Senator said: What the blank is this all about? That person had looked over the area when it was snowing and said: Why would someone possibly block this?

I have to say that this is the beginning of a long debate. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I agree. I agree with the statement the Senator read. I think that is true. I am not accusing anyone of delay. I would be happy to have a time agreement on the conference report, and I would be happy to have a time agreement on any type of point of order or motion to be raised on the conference report. I will be glad to have a vote on the conference report by voice vote if it passes. I am anxious to let people get home. I will be happy to get time agreements, and I do believe if we lose we can go back to conference and protect the Department of Defense.

I am not accusing anyone of harming the Department of Defense. I am urging people to think about national defense.

Would the Senator agree to any type of time agreement?

Good.

I thank the Senator. I think that is the way to go.

Madam President, when I spoke earlier this morning, I failed to make the comment that there are many provisions in the conference report that are beyond the scope of the original Defense appropriations bill and would be subject to rule XXVIII. For instance, the hurricane supplemental; we have $29 billion for hurricane victims, including funding for education expenses, housing, and reconstruction efforts. That was not in the bill as it came out of either House. We have the Gulf Coast Recovery Fund. This provides short and long-term funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida. Where from? From revenues from the approval of ANWR and from revenues from the approval in the reconciliation bill of the sale of spectrum when the transition takes place between analog and digital broadcasting.

Those are predictable funds. They are currently not scored, but they are moneys that, when they do come in, will be held in the Treasury to help those people in the gulf coast who need assistance.

There are also provisions in the bill concerning liability with regard to the manufacture of vaccines for avian flu. The basic bill had a provision dealing with the provision of money for research on avian flu, but now the conference report before us ensures that the production of avian flu vaccines will be available in the United States. Without this liability provision, we cannot assure that a sufficient supply of vaccines to protect us against a flu pandemic would be available.

Our American industry moved overseas. Why? Because of decisions concerning liability. In this bill is a provision authored by many Senators and Members of the House that deals with adding to the money that we provide in the Senate version of the Defense appropriations bill, the provisions regarding liability and compensation being authorized on an emergency basis, if it is ever needed. God help us it will ever be needed.

The avian flu pandemic is a real possibility now. I think it is one of the great fears of those who are involved in medicine, and I think our majority leader is one of the leaders in trying to develop a program to prevent that pandemic, if it hits the United States, from being like the pandemic flu in the early 1900s and what it did not only to the United States but the world.

In addition to that, there is real money in this bill for home energy assistance, the so-called LIHEAP program. There is $2 billion for home heating assistance.

In addition to that, we provide 5 percent from the ANWR revenues to the Federal Government to provide a long-term funding stream to deal with the problems related to increasing fuel prices and its effect on those people who need assistance to provide heating for their homes.

We also have in the bill provisions regarding interoperable communications equipment. All of us have been trying to prepare those people, called first responders, to have the equipment necessary to carry out their work. There is money in this bill for equipment grants to State and local governments to assure that first responders can communicate during national disasters and terrorist attacks.

We also have--again, there is not any other provision in either the House or Senate bill--we have emergency preparedness grants. We have money to give all State emergency preparedness people grants, and these grants are based upon population and risk. It is a fair distribution of these grants. Some

of my friends in the Senate from the larger population States have worried about distribution of such funds. These funds will be on the basis of population and risk.

We also have for the first time--really at the basic insistence of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--border security improvements. We have funds for increased border security, helicopter replacements, and security infrastructure, particularly in Arizona and California.

In addition, there is agricultural assistance that provides much- needed funding for conservation at a time when our farmers are paying such record-high energy costs. This is assistance to farmers.

Why do I point these out? Those who attack this conference report on the basis of being beyond the scope of rule XXVIII are attacking the whole conference report. The subjects I have mentioned are beyond the scope of the original Defense appropriations bill, no question about it. We added it. I urged the conference to add it because I know of the need in these areas for these funds and this legislation.

As I said before, I read the statements I made in 1996 when the Senate at another time had before it a bill pertaining to aviation where we did, in fact, have an appeal of a ruling of the Chair, and it was overruled.

The concept of overruling the Chair is not a disaster for rule XXVIII. It is an opinion. It is a disagreement on the basis of the sentiments on the floor. It is really the Senate that decides these questions. But it is true that as a result of having such a vote--by the way, I have before me now a report of the Congressional Research Service that pertains to S. Res. 160 reversing the Hutchison FedEx precedents. On two occasions in the past regarding another rule, rule XVI, there has been an overturning of the ruling of the Chair, and by adopting this S. Res. 160, the Senate directed the Presiding Officer to once again enforce the Senate rule, permitting points of order to be raised against amendments to appropriations bills authored by other Senators.

That is what we have done in this bill. The bill contains a provision which is similar to S. Res. 160, which was offered by Senator Reid, to reestablish the vitality of rule XVI.

Let me say this: By adopting, as the report says, S. Res. 160, the Senate directed the Presiding Officer to once again enforce the Senate rule permitting points of order to be raised. That is what we have done in this bill. We have added a provision which is like S. Res. 160 which directs the Presiding Officer to enforce the rule as was intended.

There is a basic disagreement. We are looking to waive the rule for one time. We are not seeking a precedent. We are not seeking to find some way around rule XXVIII permanently. We are saying that in this instance, because of the vastness of the problems we face, the problems of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, the problems of avian flu, the problems of LIHEAP, the problems of interoperable communications, the problems of the emergency preparedness grants, the homeland security and border security problems, the agricultural assistance that is needed, and the fact that ANWR, having passed both the House and the Senate, has been blocked by a filibuster.

What we are really trying to do is to avoid a filibuster being continued against a bill that passed the Senate and passed the House in this Congress. By putting it in the conference report, we do that. It cannot be filibustered. Conference reports can't be filibustered, but there can be points of order. We will be happy to face those.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will understand the reason for what we have done and why we have done it. We have done it because of a sincere belief that production of oil domestically has a great deal to do with our national security and that our national defense cannot operate without the basic potential for our own production of oil.

In the event of a blockade, such as we had in the seventies, we have to depend primarily on our own oil. Today, we import almost 60 percent of our oil. In order to operate the Department of Defense in time of emergency if there is a blockade, we have to have domestic production, and that is a matter of national security. That is why we have pursued this.

Beyond this, there is no question about it, this is important to my State--to our State, Madam President. You are from our State. The Presiding Officer dignifies the Senate by presiding over it. When we look at the problem we have in oil pipelines carrying 2.1 million barrels a day--that was its production at the height of the gulf war. At this time, we are somewhere around 400,000 barrels a day. One-third of the oil is available to supply what we call the South 48 States. By law, that cannot be exported except by approval of the President. It has only been waived one time that I know of.

As a practical matter, what we are looking at is finding out if it is possible to increase the supply of oil that is brought by the Alaska oil pipeline to the rest of the country. That means a lot. We are here because it means jobs in our State, and it means income for our State. But this is Federal land this time. Prudhoe Bay was on State land. We are talking about Federal land.

By the way, some people argue that this is a pristine area that has never been explored for oil and gas. That is wrong. One well was drilled in this area, drilled at Kaktovik. We have had oil exploration there for years. When I was with the Interior Department in 1958, I helped draw the order that established the Arctic Wildlife Range, 9 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. Oil and gas exploration was permitted. Then along came the withdrawals and demands of President Carter for additional withdrawals. We had a long debate. It was a debate that lasted 7 years. It culminated in the act that was called ANILCA, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, in 1980. That act specifically reserved 1.2 million acres of that coastal plain for oil and gas exploration. When that is over, it will become part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, but at this time it is reserved for oil and gas exploration.

What this provision in this bill says is go ahead with that exploration, which was the commitment made to us in 1980 by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas. I will continue to talk about this, but I want to make sure every Senator understands, although I did say if this conference report fails, we can quickly reconstitute another conference committee. The provisions I have mentioned that are beyond the scope will be challenged. They will be challenged and some of them are part of the ANWR provision. We have taken the funds that will be received by the Federal Government and committed them to assist in the recovery of the disaster areas. We have committed them to assist in terms of low- income heating, the LIHEAP program. We have committed them across the board in many places in order to assure that funding is available for these emergency areas where it normally takes time to have Congress come in to being and consider a bill usually in a year to a year and a half.

We are saying in advance the moneys are in the Treasury and if they are needed for these emergency purposes they are to be released. In other words, the ANWR bill is not only a bill to proceed with oil and gas exploration development; it says the bonus that will be received and it will be shared in the LIHEAP program, it will be shared in the communications area and in the disaster area. As we get revenues from royalties to the Federal Government, those will be committed to further protect the completion of recovery from the disaster of these terrible hurricanes. It will be there to assist in our transition to a new form of digital communication. It will be there to assist the first responders throughout the country. The ANWR revenues are very important revenues. They are revenues that come to the Treasury from the production of oil and gas. As the price of oil goes up, those revenues go up. They are real revenues, and we are saying to the people of the United States, if we develop this area, the money that is received by the Federal Government will be committed to those people who are in great need.

So I tell the Senate, if this conference report comes down because of a point of order, we will go back to conference, but many of these provisions cannot be in there if ANWR is no longer there. I urge the Senate to listen to what is in this bill and to understand that the motivation of this Senator in regard to those provisions came

out of the trip I took when I took the Commerce Committee to New Orleans. This is not something dreamed up. I see the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is in the Chamber. We went down there and, along with the people from the city and the State, we toured that area of devastation. As I told my own people at home by television programming just recorded, I have seen devastation in my day. I saw the earthquake in Alaska in 1964. I saw the great interior of Alaska flooded in 1966. I saw enormous devastation in China in World War II where the Japanese had bombed villages and areas out of existence. But I have never seen devastation as has occurred in the New Orleans area as a result of failure of those levees and Hurricane Katrina. It is something one cannot believe unless they see it, and when they see it they come home filled with sadness. How can we possibly help those people? The Federal laws do not contemplate that kind of devastation. The Federal laws assist people from normal types of hurricanes and even typhoons and tidal waves that have hit our States, but the real possibility is that unless we pass this bill, a lot of those people are not going to receive the assistance they should have.

I see the Senator from Mississippi is behind me. I would be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan has asked a great question: Why are we here? And why is this bill before us? We are here primarily because, as I went through the process of trying to get the Arctic national wildlife area, the coastal plain open for exploration and development as was promised in 1980, I ran across a lot of things that were involved in this process this year that I, incidentally, support.

I support LIHEAP. There is no question that there is a demand, because of the increase in the price of energy, for assistance to those people who have to pay more for their heating oil. We tried to deal with that in connection with the reconciliation act, and there was a billion dollars in that bill for that program. We face a demand from the people who believe in it, as I do, that that be increased.

The provisions of ANWR in this bill, as we go into the process of trying to assist people who need assistance, will provide for $2 billion for LIHEAP. That is $2 billion in 2006 in terms of appropriation of moneys now. These funds will be allocated based on emergency needs. That emergency will be repaid by funds generated from this amendment. Those funds we hope will be generated in 2008.

Many people oppose declaring emergency after emergency. I agree with that. I think the greatest increase in our budget now is interest on the national debt once again. We have to stop that increase because as it increases, it squeezes out programs such as LIHEAP. But we put in here a provision to go ahead and help people in 2006 but repay it when the moneys come from ANWR.

If you don't want to vote for ANWR, you are not going to get money for 2006 for LIHEAP. People say that is bad. That is the only place they could find the money. That is a program I support very much. When you look at these other areas, I will be coming back time and again to say to people: OK, you oppose ANWR, but where are you going to get the money to do some of the things we want?

We have to stop exporting our money for oil. Every time we buy a barrel of oil from offshore, we export jobs. We export money. We can't get it back unless we reduce the value of our exports in order to try to balance our payments.

I do believe we have a lot of problems. I will be discussing them today. But it is a good question: Why are we here? We are here because the Senate passed ANWR in the reconciliation process. The House passed the bill as a legislative item. The House insisted that we try to find a way to pass the ANWR provision in the Senate without putting it in the reconciliation bill. A bipartisan plea came to me from the House to put the ANWR provision on the Defense appropriations bill. I had said before: You don't want to do that. We have it in reconciliation. Why did we put it in the reconciliation bill? Because there has been a filibuster. We are not talking about a fair vote; we are talking about an assumption by opponents of this that we must have a filibuster every time we try to find some way to increase our domestic production of oil and gas.

This is an area that is known as containing the largest single structure on the North American Continent from which oil and gas can be produced. We want to find a way to bring into production the oil from that vast area. A well was drilled there, and it was what we call a tight hole. It was agreed at the time it was drilled that the information from that drilling would only be provided to the Department of Interior and to the companies that drilled it, but it must be sealed. No one has ever published the results of that well. But the area has been drilled.

I will say to the Chair that not one of the companies that participated in funding that well ever was discouraged from seeking the leasing at ANWR. So while they can't publish that it was good, their actions over 25 years demonstrate that it was good. The question is, Should we produce it? If we produce it, revenue from the bonus bids to get the leases will be used to repay what we spend in 2006 for LIHEAP. This program is to provide low-income heating assistance. This is a very legitimate way to get money for the home energy assistance program that is needed right now.

Another thing that is tied into these funds is emergency preparedness. Another thing is equipment for first responders. Again, the funds there come from spectrum sales.

Mr. President, the budget estimated $10 billion for spectrum sales. The FCC says it will be $28 billion. I conferred with the Congressional Budget Office and said: Look, you have estimated $10 billion, and the FCC says $28 billion. I am going to assume it is going to be at least $20 billion.

They said: If you make that assumption, what you are doing in terms of spending in the bill, we cannot validate that because we deal with total predictability. You deal with probability when you look at that second $10 billion.

I was the author of spectrum originally. Before that, spectrum was available through the FCC when it was released by one company. There was a lottery to see who got the right to have it. They literally drew from a hat. Whoever got that draw out of the hat got a piece of paper that entitled them to a license from the FCC worth millions and sometimes billions.

I say: Why do that? Why don't you have an auction for that? When I was in the Department of the Interior, we used to do the same thing with leases on Federal lands. I convinced them at that time to find a way to auction those off. That is why we have the auction for the leasing of ANWR. We will get revenues from auction, and the estimated revenue by OMB and CBO is $2.5 billion. We know it is going to be at least $18 billion. All we are assuming is there is an additional $2.5 billion involved. As it comes into the Treasury, it is earmarked to pay back these emergencies we have declared. I think that is legitimate and a way to be fiscally responsible--only if we lease ANWR.

Those who want to take ANWR out of the bill are taking out funding for the things that flow from it and flow from an additional assumption that the receipts from spectrum are going to be more than estimated by CBO. I am going to be back again and again.

We have been involved in this debate for a long time. Every time I come here I remember my departed friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass. As an old friend of mine says, I get ``puddled up'' a little. They were on the other side of the aisle, but we worked for the common good and we got a commitment that 1\1/2\ million acres of Alaska would remain open for oil and gas development. As they took the Carter bill through the Senate that withdrew 105 million acres of my State's land--my State has 365 million acres. This 105 million acres is roughly the size of California. All of that is not open for oil and gas development. It is not open for hardly anything. We have national parks, wildlife refuge, wilderness areas, and a whole series of classified types of programs where the public land laws don't apply.

But the one area where the Mineral Leasing Act law still applies subject to an act of Congress to proceed is the 1\1/2\ million acres on the Arctic Plain. There is unquestioned money coming in from this auction, Mr. President. It will be big. Our oil industry is now developing throughout the world. The great, dynamic, young President of ConocoPhilips is in Moscow negotiating with the Russians today to get Russian oil for the United States. In 1980, we could not have even dreamed that we would have a chief executive officer of an American oil company in Moscow negotiating to get oil from Russia. We had just come through the embargoes of the 1970s, when the imports into the United States of oil from Arab countries was barred by an embargo.

We are at the point now where we are dependent upon foreign oil for almost 60 percent of our total needs for petroleum. What we are saying is why don't we do what we know should be done? Congress passed this bill in 1995. Both Houses voted for it. It was an amendment that went to President Clinton, and he vetoed the bill.

Mr. President, I believe we have a real problem in terms of our domestic production. Let me say this. Production from Prudhoe Bay, the area that brought in the great amount of production for the United States, averaged 1.6 million barrels a day in 1988, and it was down to 381,000 barrels this year. That pipeline is designed to carry 2.1 million barrels a day, and it did for a little while. It is down to 381,000 barrels. North Slope production has dropped from 2.1 million barrels a day to 916,000 barrels a day. The production is expected to drop even further during this period ahead of us.

The way to fill that pipeline back up is to complete exploration and development of that part of the Arctic Plain left open for development by my friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass after a long period of debate. I do believe there is a lot to be said about this bill. In 2004, our trade deficit was $651.52 billion; 25 percent of that, one- quarter--really 25.5--came from the importation of oil. People talk about our trade deficit. That is $166 billion in 2004. The reason we continue to be importing more oil is because we are producing less at home. We have doubled our energy imports since 1999. We have an insatiable demand for energy.

I agree that we should develop alternative sources, but meanwhile we have to meet the demand, which is enormous. We are importing now, in September of this year, 9 million barrels a day, at an average cost of $55 per barrel. We spent $495 million a day--almost a half billion dollars a day is going out of the country to buy oil. For every barrel of oil we import, we send that $55 abroad. If that $55 was spent in the United States, changing hands several times in our economy, as the people who work and develop and produce that oil pay for goods and services, it would generate tax revenue. One of the reasons our tax revenue is not going up as predicted is we are importing more oil.

For every $1 billion we spend to develop domestic resources, we create 12,500 jobs. That means in 2003 we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil rather than producing it here. The public lands of the United States have been closed to oil and gas exploration. This area left open to oil and gas exploration in Alaska has been denied access for the oil and gas industry. We have had a 75-percent increase in the price of gasoline during this period. Why? The total cost of oil is now determined by foreign producers, not by competition with domestic producers.

By developing the resources on the coastal plain, we could create between 700,000 and a million American jobs, and we would put $60 million back into the U.S. economy every day that we produce and send that oil south in the oil pipeline.

I do believe there is every reason to be here today. There is every reason to say let's vote; let's vote on the conference report. That conference report ought to be approved. It has money for Defense and for Katrina, in terms of the disaster area; it has the money for the avian flu, and particularly the liability provisions that are necessary to make that work.

Mr. President, I think we should think twice about this and people saying something is wrong here. We have repeatedly at times in the past challenged the ruling of the Chair. We did it really in terms of very controversial subjects in terms of the FedEX bill and in terms of the aviation bill in 1996. We are not trying to do something that has never been done. I have heard some Senators accuse me of breaking the rules. I am here because of the rules, Mr. President. I am here because we are using the rules to try to achieve the passage of this very vital measure for our national defense because it has been filibustered. We did pass it in connection with the Reconciliation Act this year, and I believe we ought to recognize that there is no question about our need to develop and produce in this area.

I don't want to keep going. I could go all month about ANWR. I have been dealing with it for 25 years. I don't even need any notes to keep going for a day. The point is if anybody else wants to speak, I will be glad to yield to them.

This is a very vital subject, as far as I am concerned. The necessity for it is linked to national defense, there is no question about it.

This bill contains $446.7 billion for the Department of Defense. It includes $50 billion to sustain contingency operations for Iraq and Afghanistan. It has a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel.

My colleague and I, my great friend and cochairman from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, managed this bill. There is no question we did our best within the amount of money allowed to take care of the essential needs for the Department of Defense. Without this bill, the Department of Defense has to continue to defer spending, freeze contracts, postpone repair projects, and delay hiring. It is currently operating under a continuing resolution. I opposed a continuing resolution. I said, no, let's pass this bill, in July. I said when we came back in September, let's pass this bill.

It has been delayed. Why? Because of so many demands on the Congress coming out of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We have been immersed in trying to solve the problems that came out of those monstrous disasters.

I do believe that if the Senate votes not to take this conference report, we will need a new conference. We will have to appoint new conferees, and the process will start from the beginning. The important thing is, unless ANWR is back in there, there is not money for LIHEAP, there is not money for first responders, there is not money for interoperability, there is not the money for the various items we have been able to find ways to pay for because of the development of ANWR.

I predict we can quickly get at it if we have to, as I said, but if we vote to do it, and we can vote today--we can vote for both this and the reconciliation process today--this bill could be on the President's desk tonight. It is right there. It is on the desk. It can be voted on. We are ready to vote. The reason we sat through last night was they would not let us vote.

I do think we should understand that the failure to vote on this bill is a failure to respond to the needs of the country. My staff and I have worked many days on this. We have worked long hours, as I told my group at home. We have burned the midnight oil on this one. We examined the needs when I

went down to New Orleans with our Commerce Committee. We examined the needs in hearings of our Department of Defense Subcommittee. We examined the needs in terms of the Commerce Committee. Senator Inouye and I heard about the needs of first responders and the need for interoperability equipment for them. This bill gives it to them. It responds to their needs.

It doesn't pay all of them right away, but it says: Look, you can get the money you need to start this, but as the money starts coming in from ANWR and spectrum, you will be able to proceed with the programs you need to have funded.

This is a serious issue. Our national security depends upon a reliable supply of oil that is not subject to the whims of a foreign country or adversaries.

The fuel used by the Department of Defense is delivered today primarily through the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, and much of it is refined in our State right now. Jet fuel in our State used by the Department of Defense includes 52 million gallons per year at Elmendorf and other places, 21 million gallons per year in Eielson, 3.5 million gallons of JP5 used by the Coast Guard. A total of 76.5 million gallons a year comes from current production of oil in Alaska.

The Alaska pipeline amendment, as I said before, was not filibustered because there was complete agreement in the Senate. Not one person suggested that pipeline amendment should be delayed. It was a close vote. The Vice President broke the tie on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. No one realizes it, but at the time, it was predicted there was to be 1 billion barrels of oil produced from that area. We have produced 14 billion barrels already.

Overall the Department of Defense uses 4.62 billion gallons of oil a year. In Iraq alone, the total amount predicted to be consumed per year is 5.76 billion gallons. And yet we are almost totally dependent now on foreign sources. It is not right.

Let me quote from my good friend Senator Jackson, then chairman of the Energy Committee, when he addressed the Senate on the pipeline. Senator Jackson said:

The pipeline involves a national security issue. There is

no serious question today that it is urgently needed in the

national interest to start the North Slope oil flowing to

markets.

That is the Democratic Senator from Washington, chairman of the Energy Committee at the time.

People today challenge my statement that oil is a national security issue. He said that at the time of the debate on the oil pipeline amendment in 1973. He said, I repeat:

This involves a national security issue. There is no

serious question today that it is urgently needed in the

national interest to start North Slope oil flowing to

markets.

This area known as ANWR is the balance of the North Slope production area, and it should be available for production.

I have a lot of other issues to mention. At the very least, we ought to compare our situation. In 1973, when the oil embargo took place, we imported one-third of our oil, our petroleum. Now we import 60 percent. Without ANWR, by 2025, we will import 70 percent of our oil. We will be more than two-thirds dependent upon foreign sources for oil.

What will we do in times of need? I remember those lines in the seventies. Some of us remember them well. I remember rationing in World War II. Are we going to go to a system of rationing? Our foreign imports are not that secure, no matter what anybody says.

Senator Hutchison is on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in tribute to COL Norm Vaughan who accompanied ADM Richard Byrd to Antarctica. He celebrates his 100th birthday today. The Anchorage Daily News has printed an article by Carol Phillips talking about Vaughan as a great man and good friend. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record the President's consolidated report on the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to operations around the world.

This report is provided for the information of all Senators and covers operations in support of the war on terror, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This report is submitted by the President, consistent with the war Powers Resolution, and addresses the circumstances under which hostilities were initiated, the scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional and legislative authority under which the introduction of hostilities took place.

I encourage all of my colleagues to review this important report.

I ask unanimous consent to have the President's consolidated report printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized for a few minutes and that the time not come out of the time that is currently allotted on this bill.

Mr. President, I regret seriously that I was not here at the beginning of the statement made by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I was in an interview, as a matter of fact. My staff came to tell me the Senator was speaking about the article I gave to him that my daughter Lily wrote. I have come to the floor to thank him for his courtesy and generosity in speaking about that article.

Lily is one of my six children, the last of my children. As the Senator from West Virginia indicated, she is in law school at Boalt Hall. She wrote her thesis at Stanford about the history of this Capitol. I gave a copy of that thesis to the Librarian of Congress, James Billington, and he passed it on to the National Capitol Historical Society. They determined they would print part of it in their current bulletin, which pleased me very much.

I shared that with the Senator from West Virginia, as any proud father would, particularly with the Senator from West Virginia because of our

great friendship and the time we have been here together. He is the senior Senator on his side of the aisle, and I am now the senior Senator on this side of the aisle. I will forever be his junior in terms of not only age but service and the admiration I have for him.

I knew Senator Byrd would be interested in the way Lily described this Capitol, its history, and its importance to this country. It is a beautiful article, I think, and I am doubly proud of her and extremely pleased that he would take the time and do us both the honor of putting that article in the Record.

I invite my friends and colleagues to read that article. Lily had a different life than most of my other five children. She literally grew up here from the time she was a very small baby, and came to the Senate quite often and sat on my shoulder when we were in conference meetings.

Senator Byrd has always been very gracious about coming to her birthday parties which we held here during the 8 years I was the whip on this side of the aisle. All of our family has such a great admiration for the Senator and for his great history.

I think many people do not realize that he is not only the most senior Senator, but he is the only Senator who went through both the university level and law school level while serving in the Congress. He has a prodigious memory. I think of times when, for instance, we were at the U.S.-British Parliamentary Conference when I encouraged the Senator to tell us some of his memories of serving in the Capitol when we were with our fellow legislators from the Parliament of Britain. We have great memories of that.

I also have a memory of the time when we were in West Virginia when one member of the Parliament made the mistake of saying that Americans didn't know much about the history of our mother country and those who have served Britain and their monarchy. Senator Byrd proceeded to tell us in detail about every single person who ever served in that position, including the husbands and wives of the monarchs of Britain.

I have so many great memories of service with Senator Byrd. I have already ordered a copy of the transcript and the tape of this presentation to send to Lily. I can think of no nicer birthday present to me than that the Senator from West Virginia would honor my daughter and the article she has written about the place we both love, the Capitol of the United States.

I thank the Senator very much for his courtesy.

Mr. President, the Senator twice honors me. I do thank the Senator very much. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving here more than a short time develop relationships that I think the rest of the body and perhaps the country don't understand. Very clearly my commitment in terms of friendship and devotion to my friend from West Virginia is equal to his for me. I am very pleased and proud to have that relationship with him.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I am deeply disturbed by what I believe is an attempt to write a revisionist history of our involvement in Iraq and our pre-war intelligence.

Since 1981, I have served as the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. As one who has watched over the Defense Department's Appropriations, I was impressed with President Clinton's position on Iraq. The President and his top advisers--Vice President Gore, Secretary of State Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and others--consistently made the case we should take seriously the threat Iraq and its weapons, program posed.

I have come to the floor twice in the past to submit President Clinton's February 1998 Pentagon speech into the Congressional Record. Before giving his speech, President Clinton was briefed by the generals who command all of our forces. Their briefing convinced President Clinton that he might have to take military action against Saddam Hussein, and he told the generals to be ready.

Those of us in Congress never doubted President Clinton's sincerity or truthfulness regarding this issue. In 1998, he said:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our

purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat

posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Vice President Al Gore echoed this concern. He said:

Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass

destruction poses a grave threat . . . to the security of the

world.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright told us:

Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there

matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of

a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological

weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security

threat we face.

And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned:

He (Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass

destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.

Many Members of the Senate agreed the threat was real and imminent. In 2002, Senator Kennedy said:

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking

and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Senator Rockefeller warned:

Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons

capabilities pose real threats to America, today, tomorrow.

And Senator Kerry said:

These weapons pose an unacceptable threat.

In October 2002, the Senate overwhelmingly supported giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. We authorized the use of force in a vote of 77 to 23. The facts before us indicated Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat.

Let me be clear: At the time, the facts were undisputed and we were all provided the same information. These were the facts as we understood them. Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against the Iranians, his own people and possibly some of our men and women in uniform during the first gulf war.

In 1998, the weapons inspectors were forced out of Iraq. When the inspectors left, the regime was capable of resuming bacterial warfare agent production within weeks. Iraq had not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions canisters. Iraq had not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets previously used for delivery of nerve agents or 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

Saddam Hussein had been ordered by the U.N. to disarm 16 times, and 16 times he refused to comply. He engaged in a series of deceitful tactics designed to prevent U.N. inspectors from completing their inspections.

Our intelligence agencies gathered further evidence of his activities. This information was classified to protect our sources and methods. I received those intelligence briefings. I believe I received the same information as President Clinton. These intelligence reports were deeply disturbing, and phase I of the Intelligence Committee's investigations found this information was not coerced or influenced in any way. It was our intelligence agency's best assessment of what was going on in Iraq at the time. Had the President received those briefings and failed to act, he would have been negligent in his duty to keep Americans safe. Those in the Senate who voted for the resolution believed this, which is why we authorized the use of force.

I am now disturbed by the way some are twisting this history to suit their own political agendas. Why is anyone calling the people of this administration liars when the speaker shared their position? In many cases, those who accuse the administration of deception previously had made the case even more strongly than President Bush.

The Senate Intelligence Committee spent 2 years putting together a bipartisan report on our prewar intelligence.

Their report found there were no attempts to influence analysts or no evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure an analyst to change his or her judgment--not once.

Every member of the Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democrat, approved that report. The Silverman-Robb report and six other major studies found there is no basis for the claim that the administration lied to get us to go to war.

The search for weapons of mass destruction will not be completed on our timetable. Look at this picture: The Iraqis buried entire planes in the desert. We have two photographs of planes being unearthed, full planes buried beneath the sand. When we pulled them out, they were still operable.

Our troops found 30 of these planes buried in the sands of the Al- Taqqadum airfield west of Baghdad--30 planes. That is one-tenth of their entire combat Air Force. If Saddam Hussein's troops had buried one-tenth of their combat aircraft in the desert, who is to say there were no weapons of mass destruction similarly buried? Just because they were not found does not mean they were never there. The Nation of Iraq is the size of California. The materials needed to make weapons of mass destruction could fit in a container the size of a family bathtub. Weapons of mass destruction are no bigger than a family bathtub.

We now stand at a critical moment in history. I believe we must reflect on events leading to the war, but this process is only useful if it is honest and accurate. Those who are trying to rewrite history, revisionist history of these events are simply advancing their own political agendas. They are not advancing the important work due now in the region--and do so on a bipartisan basis.

I agree with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. A flexible timetable for troop withdrawal could jeopardize our men and women in uniform and their mission. The only way we can lose in Iraq is if we defeat ourselves, if we refuse to stay the course. The path to progress is slow and steady. It has milestones, but it does not have timelines. We must remain behind our troops.

Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers began the great American experiment. They set out to create a government defined by its commitment to liberty and freedom. Iraq is one of this century's proving grounds for those ideals. Our men and women in uniform, all volunteers, are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build their emerging democracies. Their sacrifices ensure, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth.''

Distorting our prewar intelligence will not help them complete their mission. We must support the important work they are doing in Iraq, not send mixed messages. The men and women in uniform were asked to go to Iraq to help Iraq become a democracy dedicated to freedom. They are doing that. I will continue to support those and stay the course and support Iraq's efforts to stand up their own forces so they can defend that freedom.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the committee held a hearing on this and some of the items we are pursuing,

some of the concepts, might be involved with this amendment. But this is not germane to this bill, nor the place for the Senate to consider this action. The FTC may need some jurisdiction here, but the jurisdiction that would follow with the Cantwell amendment is much too broad. Twenty-seven States have this authority now. The question is whether we should at some time give the FTC jurisdiction over multiple State problems. This is no way to go about it. It is not germane to the bill. I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

I object. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I seek time before the vote to raise a point of personal privilege concerning a comment made about me in the Chamber today. I desire 5 minutes but before the vote.

If that is agreed to, I won't object to the time until that time being allocated to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I misunderstood the time sequence, and the Parliamentarian tells me the Senator has until 2:30 p.m.?

I remove my previous objection. The Senator should continue to have her time until 1:30.

Mr. President, how much time remains for the minority at this time?

Mr. President, if no one seeks that time, I ask that I be permitted to start the majority time at this time.

Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to speak on what I consider to be a matter of personal privilege. It has been brought to my attention that the Senator from Illinois unfairly maligned my character in direct violation of rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Rule XIX states:

No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any

form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators

any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

The Senator from Illinois apparently takes exception to the fact that witnesses who appeared voluntarily before the joint hearing of the Senate Commerce and Energy Committees last week were not sworn in. I would like to set the record straight about the events of that day.

The request by Senator Cantwell to swear in the witnesses was delivered to my office at 8:10 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. It was leaked to the press before it was ever delivered to me. As a matter of fact, the Seattle press that morning had reported that I had already rejected the request before I had even received it or read it.

While I have accomplished many things in my 37 years in the Senate, the ability to see into the future or read into the minds of other Members is not one of them. Had the Senator from Illinois read the transcript of that hearing, he would have a better understanding of why I took the actions I did as the chairman opening that hearing.

I made this opening statement:

I remind the witnesses as well as the Members of these

committees, Federal law makes it a crime to provide false

testimony. Specifically section 1001 of title 18 provides in

pertinent part: ``Whoever in any matter within the

jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of

the United States knowingly or willfully makes any material

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation

shall be fined under this title or be imprisoned not more

than 5 years, or both.''

I continued my statement at that time:

Having reviewed the rules of the Senate and the rules of

the Commerce and Energy Committees and the relevant

provisions of title II of United States Code, there is

nothing in the standing rules of our committee rules or in

the Senate which requires witnesses to be sworn. The statute

has the position that everyone appearing before the Congress

is in fact under oath. These witnesses accepted an invitation

to appear before our committees voluntarily. They are aware

that making false statements and testimony is a violation of

Federal law whether or not an oath has been administered. I

shall not administer an oath today.

Earlier, Senator Durbin of Illinois came to the Chamber and said--and I quote from the Record that has been provided to me:

You probably heard about the hearing before the Senate

Commerce Committee. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington

insisted these oil company executives be sworn in, testify

under oath, just as the third base company executives were a

few years ago. But Senator Stevens, the chairman of the

committee, refused to allow them to be sworn in. Why? So they

couldn't be held accountable if they didn't tell the truth.

Mr. President, I believe Senator Durbin's comments are a direct violation of rule XIX. I did not swear in witnesses who appeared before our committee because they are required to tell the truth under law.

Those are the rules of the Senate, the rules of our committees. To suggest I did not administer an oath to these witnesses to help them lie to Members of Congress is false, inexcusable, and in violation of rule XIX, the longstanding practice of Senatorial courtesy, and I expect an apology from the Senator from Illinois.

What is the status of the time now in terms of control of time?

Mr. President, under the conditions that if the Senator from Montana would yield to our colleagues on this side if they come to make a statement on the bill, I yield to the Senator from Montana.

No, I am not going to deliver a eulogy.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his courtesy. I do intend to attend the ceremony to eulogize the former Sergeant at Arms of the Senate.

(The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 2012 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican-controlled time on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report be reserved for later in the day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I come to the Senate, along with my good friend and coauthor, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

This legislation reauthorizes the law that manages and regulates fisheries in the United States exclusive economic zone. It is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Cantwell, and Vitter.

The law was originally enacted in 1976. A that time it was titled the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Senator Warren Magnuson and I developed the law after Warren sent me to monitor the law of the sea negotiations, which took place all over the world. A concept considered during these negotiations was the expansion of a coastal nation's sovereignty over its seaward waters out to 200 miles.

Warren and I took a bipartisan approach to the legislation and developed a bill that established our country's exclusive right to harvest fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles and put in place one of the most successful Federal-State management systems. This system recognized the complexity of our differing fish stocks and the unique regional approaches needed to manage these resources.

This is now the seventh authorization of the act we created over 30 years ago. It is the first reauthorization I have been a part of as chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005 implements many of the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--the first such commission authorized by Congress to review our nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. This was coauthored by my great friend from South Carolina, Senator Ernest Hollings. The Commission's recommendations were important to the development of this act we present to the Senate today.

The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations and to build on some of the sound fishery management principles we passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which was the last time we reauthorized the act.

Our bill will preserve and strengthen the regional fishery management councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization establishes a council training program designed to prepare members for the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest requirements which apply to the fishery management process. In addition, this reauthorization addresses concerns over the transparency of the regional council process--it provides additional financial disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the act's conflict of interest and recusal requirements.

In order to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest of fishery resources in all eight regional council jurisdictions, this bill mandates the use of annual catch limits which shall not be exceeded. Under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, overfishing of overfished stocks was to end. To meet this goal, we required the implementation of rebuilding plans which would restore any overfished species to sustainable levels. It has been almost 10 years since we passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act and overfishing of overfished stocks remains a significant problem. The legislation we are introducing today requires every fishery management plan to contain an annual catch limit which is set at or below optimum yield, based on the best scientific information available.

This bill also requires that any harvests exceeding the annual catch limit be deducted from the annual catch limit for the following year.

An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation establishes national guidelines for the harvesting of fish for limited access privilege programs, which are also called LAPPs. These guidelines would require that any LAPP must accomplish important objectives, including: assisting in rebuilding an overfished fishery; reducing capacity in a fishery that is overcapitalized; promoting the safety of human life at sea; promoting conservation and management; and providing a system for monitoring, management, and enforcement of the program.

The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended we address the inconsistencies between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. They recommended we resolve timeline or ``process'' issues which have required councils to spend much of their time and funding developing litigation-proof environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under NEPA.

This bill provides a uniform process under which councils can consider the substantive requirements of NEPA while adhering to the timelines found in Magnuson-Stevens when they are developing fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulations.

Several of the provisions in this bill strengthen the role of science in council decisionmaking, which was another strong recommendation made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill specifies that the scientific and statistical committees, called SSCs, are to provide their councils with on-going scientific advice needed for management decisions. This may include

recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are also expected to advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socioeconomic impacts.

We have enhanced the overall effectiveness of this act by improving data collection and management. Our legislation authorizes a national cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal and State managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry participants, and scientists. This will improve data related to recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal waters. Our legislation also directs the secretary, in cooperation with the councils, to create a regionally based bycatch reduction engineering program which will develop technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well. It has enabled effective conservation and management of our fishery resources and allowed for sustainable harvests. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission singled out the fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council--which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish--as an example of proper fisheries management.

Let me say that again. They singled out the fisheries management by the North Pacific Council, which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish, as an example of proper fisheries management.

The council consistently sets an optimum yield far below the acceptable biological catch, and the fisheries in its jurisdiction have remained sustainable and abundant. That is the North Pacific Council, Mr. President. Our goal is to build upon this success and ensure the sustainability of this resource for generations to come.

Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high- seas is lacking. Industrial foreign fleets continue to expand and fish in remote and deep parts of the oceans. When we first developed this legislation over 30 years ago, such practices were unimaginable. The illegal, unreported, and unregulated--we call this IUU--fishing on the high-seas now threatens the good management taking place in U.S. waters that we control.

Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation and management. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish an international compliance and monitoring program and to provide Congress with reports on our progress in reducing IUU fishing. This bill also requires the Secretary to promote international cooperation and strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, this legislation allows the use of measures authorized under the High Seas Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU fishing.

I have been pleased with the bipartisan approach we have taken on this bill. My co-chairman, Senator Inouye, and I have worked together on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to implement the provisions of the ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population''. This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Inouye.

The United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Implementation Act of 2005 will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act adding provisions to create a binational U.S. and Russian Polar Bear Commission. This commission will be authorized to determine annual take limits and the adoption of other measures to restrict the taking of polar bears for subsistence purposes. The Commission will also identify polar bear habitats and ``develop recommendations for habitat conservation measures.'' Additionally, it prohibits the possession, import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of any polar bear, or any part or product thereof, that is taken in violation of the Agreement.

This bill will simultaneously support the conservation of U.S. and Russian Polar Bear populations and the historical traditions of indigenous peoples in the arctic region.

This implementing legislation for the Polar Bear Treaty is necessary to establish the needed regulatory and management entities in both the U.S. and Russia. The shared population of Polar Bears that migrate between our two nations deserve the added protections and conservation this bill will provide.

The U.S.-Russian Polar Bear Treaty was completed and signed by both countries on October 16, 2000. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the treaty in June of 2003, and reported it out favorably on July 23, 2003. The full Senate agreed to the resolution of advice and consent on the treaty on July 31, 2003. This legislation is needed for the U.S. to ratify and implement the treaty. The administration is supportive of the treaty and the proposed legislation, as are Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska, and conservation groups.

Russia has indicated that once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will promptly do the same.

Mr. President, today I come to the Senate, along with my good friend and coauthor, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

This legislation reauthorizes the law that manages and regulates fisheries in the United States exclusive economic zone. It is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Cantwell, and Vitter.

The law was originally enacted in 1976. A that time it was titled the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Senator Warren Magnuson and I developed the law after Warren sent me to monitor the law of the sea negotiations, which took place all over the world. A concept considered during these negotiations was the expansion of a coastal nation's sovereignty over its seaward waters out to 200 miles.

Warren and I took a bipartisan approach to the legislation and developed a bill that established our country's exclusive right to harvest fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles and put in place one of the most successful Federal-State management systems. This system recognized the complexity of our differing fish stocks and the unique regional approaches needed to manage these resources.

This is now the seventh authorization of the act we created over 30 years ago. It is the first reauthorization I have been a part of as chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005 implements many of the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--the first such commission authorized by Congress to review our nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. This was coauthored by my great friend from South Carolina, Senator Ernest Hollings. The Commission's recommendations were important to the development of this act we present to the Senate today.

The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations and to build on some of the sound fishery management principles we passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which was the last time we reauthorized the act.

Our bill will preserve and strengthen the regional fishery management councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization establishes a council training program designed to prepare members for the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest requirements which apply to the fishery management process. In addition, this reauthorization addresses concerns over the transparency of the regional council process--it provides additional financial disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the act's conflict of interest and recusal requirements.

In order to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest of fishery resources in all eight regional council jurisdictions, this bill mandates the use of annual catch limits which shall not be exceeded. Under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, overfishing of overfished stocks was to end. To meet this goal, we required the implementation of rebuilding plans which would restore any overfished species to sustainable levels. It has been almost 10 years since we passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act and overfishing of overfished stocks remains a significant problem. The legislation we are introducing today requires every fishery management plan to contain an annual catch limit which is set at or below optimum yield, based on the best scientific information available.

This bill also requires that any harvests exceeding the annual catch limit be deducted from the annual catch limit for the following year.

An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation establishes national guidelines for the harvesting of fish for limited access privilege programs, which are also called LAPPs. These guidelines would require that any LAPP must accomplish important objectives, including: assisting in rebuilding an overfished fishery; reducing capacity in a fishery that is overcapitalized; promoting the safety of human life at sea; promoting conservation and management; and providing a system for monitoring, management, and enforcement of the program.

The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended we address the inconsistencies between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. They recommended we resolve timeline or ``process'' issues which have required councils to spend much of their time and funding developing litigation-proof environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under NEPA.

This bill provides a uniform process under which councils can consider the substantive requirements of NEPA while adhering to the timelines found in Magnuson-Stevens when they are developing fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulations.

Several of the provisions in this bill strengthen the role of science in council decisionmaking, which was another strong recommendation made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill specifies that the scientific and statistical committees, called SSCs, are to provide their councils with on-going scientific advice needed for management decisions. This may include

recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are also expected to advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socioeconomic impacts.

We have enhanced the overall effectiveness of this act by improving data collection and management. Our legislation authorizes a national cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal and State managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry participants, and scientists. This will improve data related to recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal waters. Our legislation also directs the secretary, in cooperation with the councils, to create a regionally based bycatch reduction engineering program which will develop technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well. It has enabled effective conservation and management of our fishery resources and allowed for sustainable harvests. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission singled out the fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council--which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish--as an example of proper fisheries management.

Let me say that again. They singled out the fisheries management by the North Pacific Council, which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish, as an example of proper fisheries management.

The council consistently sets an optimum yield far below the acceptable biological catch, and the fisheries in its jurisdiction have remained sustainable and abundant. That is the North Pacific Council, Mr. President. Our goal is to build upon this success and ensure the sustainability of this resource for generations to come.

Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high- seas is lacking. Industrial foreign fleets continue to expand and fish in remote and deep parts of the oceans. When we first developed this legislation over 30 years ago, such practices were unimaginable. The illegal, unreported, and unregulated--we call this IUU--fishing on the high-seas now threatens the good management taking place in U.S. waters that we control.

Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation and management. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish an international compliance and monitoring program and to provide Congress with reports on our progress in reducing IUU fishing. This bill also requires the Secretary to promote international cooperation and strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, this legislation allows the use of measures authorized under the High Seas Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU fishing.

I have been pleased with the bipartisan approach we have taken on this bill. My co-chairman, Senator Inouye, and I have worked together on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to implement the provisions of the ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population''. This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Inouye.

The United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Implementation Act of 2005 will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act adding provisions to create a binational U.S. and Russian Polar Bear Commission. This commission will be authorized to determine annual take limits and the adoption of other measures to restrict the taking of polar bears for subsistence purposes. The Commission will also identify polar bear habitats and ``develop recommendations for habitat conservation measures.'' Additionally, it prohibits the possession, import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of any polar bear, or any part or product thereof, that is taken in violation of the Agreement.

This bill will simultaneously support the conservation of U.S. and Russian Polar Bear populations and the historical traditions of indigenous peoples in the arctic region.

This implementing legislation for the Polar Bear Treaty is necessary to establish the needed regulatory and management entities in both the U.S. and Russia. The shared population of Polar Bears that migrate between our two nations deserve the added protections and conservation this bill will provide.

The U.S.-Russian Polar Bear Treaty was completed and signed by both countries on October 16, 2000. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the treaty in June of 2003, and reported it out favorably on July 23, 2003. The full Senate agreed to the resolution of advice and consent on the treaty on July 31, 2003. This legislation is needed for the U.S. to ratify and implement the treaty. The administration is supportive of the treaty and the proposed legislation, as are Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska, and conservation groups.

Russia has indicated that once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will promptly do the same.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.